Counting Cousins....drama! drama! drama!

As a genealogist, I find it interesting when someone wants to make themselves "family" and they are not.

These are Emanuel H. Saltiel's descendants:

His son, John, had 2 sons by his first marriage.  Neither of them had children.  John changed his surname to Taman and had a son, Osborn Taman.   That son was not named Saltiel.

His son, Henry, never had any children.

Thus, the only grandson's of E. H. Saltiel that had the surname "Saltiel" were Earl and Clarence Saltiel.  Both of these men are deceased.  There are no more male's named Saltiel that descend from this E. H. Saltiel.

Why is this an issue?  A few years back, Denver University prepared a DVD on Cotopaxi.  In it, a gentleman who lives in London with the surname "Saltiel" , said that he was a descendant of Emanuel Saltiel.  That video can be purchased online at Denver University.  When it was introduced at a meeting, it was said that this "London" Saltiel is a grandson of Emanuel Saltiel."  When I questioned that relationship I was told "well, we are all related!"

In numerous online articles he purports to be a descendant of E. H. Saltiel.

The closest possible relationship between  the "London" Saltiel and E. H. Saltiel would be 3rd cousin, 4 times removed.  That means that "London's" great, great, grandfather was a THIRD cousin to E. H. Saltiel.  So "London" would have to go back a total of 8 generations to find a common grandfather.  E. H. Saltiel (who was at Cotopaxi) was not his ancestor at all.

If you have ever wondered how to count cousins - here is an example of what is known as a "cousins" ladder":

While Abraham and David are 1st cousins, Abraham and Isaac would be 1st cousins once removed.   Abraham and Isaac's son Elias would be 1st cousins twice removed and so on.

The "London" Saltiel was never a descendant of the Emanuel Saltiel who lived in Cotopaxi.  However, if you look at the chart above, you will see that his biological grandfather's name is a  Emanuel Saltiel.  It's just a different Emanuel Saltiel, one born in 1880.  So when "London" Saltiel says that he descends from Emanuel Saltiel, he is telling the absolute truth.  It's just a completely different Emanuel Saltiel.

To compound matters farther....the line on the left, above,  is known as the Yomtov Line, and their DNA tracks as haplogroup R-m26.

The line on the right is known as the Amsterdam or North Sea Line and their DNA tracks as G-M201.   Two separate DNA lines. I will do a blogpost on DNA in the future, but you cannot descend from the same identical ancestor and have different DNA.  Simply not possible.

There are DNA websites that explain this....and there are websites showing these family trees I've posted above.  It's all in the public domain.

Still, to this very day,  the "London" Saltiel states that he is a descendant of Emanuel Saltiel in an attempt to make you think it was the Emanuel who was at Cotopaxi!!  .

Oh! The importance of genealogy!!!

Update:  Here is the link to the DNA blog where I show that these 2 lines would have to go back 500 to 1000 generations to find a common ancestor.  They are not  3rd cousins 4x removed at all.  There is no cousin relationship to speak of. Someone has "made up" the family tree connection above as DNA proves this is not a possible connection.

Yomtob Saltiel CANNOT be a brother to Ben Elias Isaac Saltiel.  If they were brothers, their male descendants with the Saltiel name would HAVE to have the same DNA....and they do not.  Again, this is proof that someone "decided" that they were brothers....and they are not.

***** c2016Cotopaxi-Colony.blogspot.com  All content is copyright protected and may not be copied, reproduced, reused or reposted in any manner without permission.

Emanuel H. Saltiel's father, John Jacob (part 2) digging deeper - finding more

updated 2/12/17 - go to the bottom of this post for new information.


The article that I posted yesterday about John Jacob Saltiel's bigamy showed that his second wife was Harriet Bates Davison and it gave us their date of marriage as May 16, 1843.  I found their marriage index here:

This shows John's name as John Alfred de Saltiell.  And when I found his prison records, it gives us an "aka" of Alfred.

Once I started searching for Alfred Jacob Saltiel, I found his death record.

He died 27 Nov 1850 and is buried at St Dunstan and All Saints, Stepney, England.  He was born in 1822.   This lines up with John Jacob Saltiel.  And the fact that both his wife and ex-wife state in the 1851 census that they are widows.  He had 2 more children with Harriet (this is the 1851 census):

Now we know that  E. H. Saltiel had a half brother, Alfred and a half sister, Elizabeth!

Looking at their mom, Harriett, she married George Clark Aug 7, 1852:

And we find that Elizabeth and Alfred have changed their surname to Clark in the 1861 census.

I think the next question to ask is whether or not E. H. Saltiel even knew that he had a half brother and sister?  They changed their surname to Clark and in the census record above they are listed as daughter and son, so perhaps George Clark adopted them.

Here's a simple timeline for this story:

Emanuel H. Saltiel lived in Bath, Somerset, England from the time he was born through the 1851 census.

John and Harriett were married in Essex, Elizabeth was born in Bethnal Green, St John, England and Alfret was born in London.

John died in London.

Looking at a map,   Here's Bath  (on the west side of England)  and you can see London.  Essex is just northeast of London.  Bethnal Green is also in London.  

Emanuel H. Saltiel was age 6 when his father died.  His father had "remarried" before he was born.  It is probably safe to say the Emanuel never knew him.  Additionally, he probably never knew his half brother and sister.

Two things have not escaped me.  1)  Mary Moore Clarke was on the marriage record above and then Harriet married George Clark later on.  One has to wonder if they were related.  And 2) In the bigamy proceedings, Harriet (2nd wife) states that Jane (pregnant 1st wife) "was out from morning to night."  I believe that just means that she knew what was going on.   Jane was an Ashkenazi and married to a  Sephardic Jew, something that wasn't much accepted at that time.  Harriet claims to have married him as a "christian" in a church.  She did not believe Saltiel was Jewish.

Keep in mind that Jane's mother was Rachel Hart, a brother to Michael Hart, the father of Eleazer Samuel Hart (E. S. Hart) who was at Cotopaxi.  I have always assumed that if Hart and Saltiel were cousins, they were both Sephardic Jews.  However, now we know the Harts were Ashkenazi and Jane married into the Saltiel Sephardic Jews.  It might explain a little of the upcoming court cases between E. S. Hart and E. H. Saltiel.

Pay attention to the detail in writings.  It's fascinating!

All of this in my search to find out what happened to Emanuel H. Saltiel's father.  Now we know that he didn't "just disappear" as other writer's have said.  Genealogy - it's more than just a name in a family tree.


new information:

I was researching something else, and a newspaper article popped up.  This article gives perhaps a better explanation of why Saltiel's father committed bigamy.  It is interesting to note that he claimed his wife, Jane Harris Saltiel, was frail and would surely die soon.  She lived another 44 years and did not pass away until 1888.   You can click on the article to make it larger.

***** c2016Cotopaxi-Colony.blogspot.com  All content is copyright protected and may not be copied, reproduced, reused or reposted in any manner without permission.

Gold Tom vs Saltiel

There are many interesting yet informative side stories to the Cotopaxi Colony.  As a historian, we need to review all of them.  As a genealogist, family relationships are critical to understanding history.

While I was in Israel this past spring I found several documents at the National Library.  One of them was a 39 page hand-written court document.  Keep in mind what I brought back was at the least a copy of a copy.  The first 22 pages have been transcribed below.  At page 23, the handwriting changed and I can only transcribe about every 3rd word at this point.  I need to see if I can find the original document which would now be archived in Denver....and in order to do that I must first research what "box" it might be stored in.  That will be a project for this summer when it is warmer and I can travel easier.

In the meantime, the first 22 pages do give us some interesting clues into the history of Saltiel's residence in Cotopaxi:

1)  It appears now that the "dwelling house" was built by Henry Thomas (Gold Tom)

I think everyone has always assumed that Saltiel built the house that we know of today as Vic Miller's place.  But this document shows us that he bought the house that was built by Henry Thomas.  That is definitely a historical change!

Note the term "dwelling house".  In England, in the mid to late 1800s, homes there were identified by using the term "dwelling house".  In all of the documents that I have found, the house that Saltiel (who grew up in London) lived in at Cotopaxi was identified as a "dwelling house".  It is marked as such on the earliest plot maps.

I had often wondered how Saltiel could have built this house so fast....yet taken so much time to have the homes for the Colonists built.  The explanation would be that he, Saltiel, did not build it.

2)  That this "dwelling house" was occupied by Saltiel and 2 young children as of Dec, 1881.

This makes sense. Saltiel had filed for divorce from  Elizabeth and sent her back to NYC.  The records tell us that was in Feb, 1881.  I had previously thought that only the oldest son remained in Cotopaxi.  Now I believe it might have been both of the sons and that she would have taken their daughter, the youngest, with her to NYC.

This still leaves the question as to who cared for these children.  My previous research shows that they were quite young....the 2 boys were ages 9 and 7 in the 1880 census.  Did they attend school?  Was there a school in Cotopaxi in 1880?  Did they travel with Saltiel when he went to NYC?  Did they stay in Cotopaxi and if so who kept watch over them?

3)  That Saltiel purchased it from Thomas on 11/24/1880.

I have this declaration of Saltiels's homestead dated 11/29/1881 and filed 7/17/1882.

4) That this lawsuit precludes this house and personal property in it.



5) The feud between Gold Tom and Saltiel began as early as 1878, which is the earliest we find Saltiel in Cotopaxi and this document gives further evidence to the fact that Gold Tom was already there, had already established mines in the area and was looking to sell them to Saltiel.


I will be posting more evidence of this ongoing battle between Gold Tom and Saltiel over this same $1500 issue that did not end until 2 weeks after Gold Tom was shot and killed in May, 1884.


In transcribing this document, if you see a row of dots......that means there are words or a word in there that I could not determine so I had to leave it out.

There may be misspelled words, but I transcribed it as it was written in 1881.

Because the original document is 39 pages, I am not including it here.

The court number might be 655.

 For this particular court case, there was a temporary injunction staying all proceedings  dated Dec 16, 1881.   But I'll give you a clue....the end result is that the courts found in favor of Gold Tom, awarded ALL of Saltiel's property to him in January 1884.  It's an interesting trail to follow and I'll be posting more in the days to come.

Here's the first 23 pages of this court case as I have transcribed it:

No 633. Term W 45Cotopaxi Placer Mining Co, et als.vsB. J. Shaffer…Henry HThomas et alt.1881 Dec 16 filed…..clerk
Filed in my office
July 28th 1882
JJattorney …
J….D Freeman sol.
State of Colorado
Fremont County
In District Court
6th District
Dec  1881
The bill of Complaint of the “Cotopaxi Placer Mining Company, E. H. Saltiel, Chas L Henchman, Walter Henchman and Wm Wagner
vs
B. F. Shaffer Sheriff Fremont County, Henry Thomas, A. Macon, J. S. Cox and Macon & Cox Attorneys at Law, all of Fremont County.
Complainants state that said Defendants or some of them have caused an execution at Law in favor of said Defendant Henry Thomas vs Complainant Saltiel on the following property not belonging to said Saltiel to wit, six Ballard Carbines, one Rifle, one Office writing desk, one dwelling house 36 by 32 feet situate in said County of Fremont at Cotopaxi.
That said levy and seizure of said property was made on the 22nd day of November AD 1881 by the Sheriff of Fremont County at the instance and request of Dependents or some of them, a copy of which levy was published as advertisement in the “Reporter”, a Newspaper published at Canon City, Colorado on the    day of    AD 1881, a copy of which advertisement is herewith filed and made part hereof as Exhibit No. 1 to this complaint.  The execu….described this advertisement is in case of Henry Thomas vs E. H. Saltiel…is on ….case of record.  That all the time of said levy and seizure all of said property belongs to and was the property of Complainant said “Cotopaxi Placer Mining Company” and still remains the property of said Mining Company except the dwelling house, which on the 24th day of November last in consideration of $1500 was sold to Complainant Saltiel as a homestead and occupied and claimed on that day by said Saltiel as a Homestead for himself and family of two minor children of said Saltiel as the head of a family and said sale of said dwelling house as a Homestead and the same as such Homestead was duly recorded on the book 13 page 386 of the books of the Recorder of said County at the Clerks Office in said County of Fremont and is by Law exempt from levy and sale by execution at Law as Complainants are informed velieve and so charge said dwelling is not worth more than the sum of nineteen hundred dollars - that the book case and dining or extension table levied on is the property of said Saltiel and are not worth to exceed one hundred dollars, and so exept from levy and sale under said execution.
Complainants further state said Saltiel has no interest in the Cotopaxi Mines levied on by said execution, but that the same belong entirely to other parties.  Seven Eights of said mines are owned by Chas B. Lamb and as ……for Wm J. Palmer, R. H. Lamborn, H. H. Dunforth and one eighths by Charles S. Henchman, Walter Henchman and Wm Wagner.
Complainant Saltiel further states that the pretended Execution under which said levy or seizure were made by said Defendants is fraudulent and void and of no force in Law or Equity because of the fraudulent procurement of the same as follows to wit
In the year 1878 Complainant Saltiel was a mine operator and dealer in mines in the State of Colorado and as such said Defendant Thomas corresponded with said Saltiel in reference to the sale of certain mines and mining property claimed by said as Cotopaxi in Fremont County, and offered said property for sale to said Saltiel by several letters written to said Saltiel by said Thomas two of which bear date at Texas Creek Fremont County Colorado.  Feb 1878 and another dated as above Feb 28th, 1879 and a third dated Jan 10th 1879, a fourth March 10th Post marked March 11th 1879, describing said property and offering  the same for sale at $2500 copies of which letters are herewith filed as Exhibits No 2, 3, 4, & 5 and made part of this Complaint.
On the 18th of March 1879 Complainant Saltiel being at St Louis Mo in the said representation of Defendant Thomas accepted the offer of said Thomas by letter of that date in reply to the said letters of said Thomas and especially to his said letter of Mar 10 1879 Postmarked Mar 11, 1879 saiyn, “I will give you the $2500 for the property if it is at all satisfactory”xxxxxx”You can rely on my purchasing your property if we can agree on date of purchase”.  Said letter is herewith filed as Exhibit No 6. hereto and made part hereof which offer of $2500 said Thomes by letter accepted on the 3rd of April 1879.  Said Defendant further replied:
“Dear Sir______I have just received yours of April 3rd.  I shall not let any one else have the property for less than $5000.  So you see I am waiting on you and will wait until the time named in yours”  which letter is filed marked Exhibit No 7.  On the      day of October 1879 Said Thomas again wrote Saltiel on the same subject saying “he was locating some good looking ground on the other side of the river and wanted to set Charlie (a messenger of said Saltiel) at work to finish an assessment hole in your interest to day, but he is leaving.  I have sunk it 4 feet and you would have to sink only 6 feet further” meaning said Thomas had to locate said property and sunk said assessment hole for Complainant Saltiel by reason of said contract for the sale of all the said interests of said Thomas, in and about Volcano Mountain and Cotopaxi to said last named letter is filed herewith as exhibit No 8.
ON teh 10th of April 1879 said Saltiel wrote said Thomas from St Louis Mo in further execution of said contract inclosing a deed of said property and describing the same to be executed by said Thomas to said Saltiel and also an agreement to be signed by said Thomas - said deed and said agreement to be deposited by said Thomas in a Bank at Pueblo and to be delivered to said Saltiel on the payment at the said Bank of said $2500 for account of said Thomas on or before the 10th day of May 1879.  Copies of said letter, deed and agreement are herewith filed marked Exhibit 9, 10, & 11.
Not receiving any reply to this letter, Complainant Saltiel left St Louis and went to Canon City Colorado when he wrote to said Thomas another letter on the 30th day of June 1879 authorizing said Thomas to draw on said Saltiel for $2000 payable at St Louis see Exhibit No 12, and not hearing from this letter again wrote on the 3rd day of July 1879.  Sending the same by a special messenger “Charley” and making another offer of $500 cash and $1500 to be paid out of any profits that may arise from sales of ores or the reduction or ores from the mines sold by the said Thomas to the said Saltiel, but all such profits shall be exactly in equal proportions to both parties - thus, if one thousand dollars only is made the first year, then said Thomas shall receive only the first year five hundred dollars, and so on in the same manner until such total fifteen hundred dollars is fully paid up.  In witness whereof I have hereto set my hand and seal this 30th day of July AD 1879.
Emanuel H. Saltiel
Which letter and proposed agreement are filed as Exhibit 13 & 14 and made part hereof.
Said proposal was a mere mode of paying the $2500 purchase money
……(line cut of by copy machine)…..
2nd payment of $1000 cash $1500 to be paid from the proceeds of the ores to be taken from the mines previously sold to Saltiel for $2500.  The receipt of these propositions was never acknowledged by said Thomas nor was the same ever accepted by him.  On the contrary he held to the original contract of $2500 and no consideration or credit ever passed from said Thomas to said Saltiel for said proposal 13 & 14 the said Thomas retaining the same as part of his correspondence with said Saltiel and for no other purpose or motive known to said Saltiel.
In the mean time said Saltiel was making preparation to pay the said purchase money agreed upon of $2500 and to erect works for the reduction of the ores of said mines and to that end obtained the cooperation of a Capitalist and Constructor of said works and machinery for smelting and reducing said ores to whom said Saltiel sold a half interest in said mines and thereupon in consideration of …..benefits….consideration of the sum of fifteen hundred dollars in cash and one thousand dollars to be subsequently paid or accounted for in other dealings with said Thomas the latter at the request of Saltiel on the 31st day of July 1879 made a deed of said property to said Saltiel & Harrison.
The nominal consideration for said deed was $10,000 but the real consideration was that of the original contract $2500 and of this fact said Thomas was fully informed at the time said deed was made.  Said deed is filed as Exhibit 15 hereto.
And thereupon thereafter other dealings occurring between said Thomas and said Saltiel and said Saltiel having expended and advanced a considerable sum of money for said Thomas at his request for a gun amunition supplies & implement on or about the 21st day of April 1881 said Thomas and said Saltiel met at the Ranch of said Thomas near said mine and accounted together of and concerning all of their said dealings about said mine and other properties, guns, implement supplies money advanced to said Thomas who was in want and obliged to borrow money of said Saltiel as admitted by him in his said letters to said Saltiel (ex 13 & 14) and thereupon it was agreed that said Thomas, in consideration of one thousand dollars should make to said Saltiel two deeds conveying to said Saltiel the properties, rights and interests therein described, real, personal and mixed and deliver up to said Saltiel all the……. of title to the same, location certificates of mines and proposed agreements not consumated, all of which were forever concluded by said deeds.  Said deeds were drawn and agreed upon by and between said parties at the Ranch of said Thomas in Fremont Co, and it was then further agreed that siad parties should take the Railroad nearby and go to Canon City before Orson G. Stanley, notary public, where the aid Thomas would acknowledge the execution of said deeds and deliver the same together with said other …..of title to said mines and mining properties and said pretended agreements to said Stanley for the use of said Saltiel and the said Saltiel agreed to delivery to said Stanley a sight draft on a Bank in Colorado Springs for $1000.00 payable to the order of said Thomas, all of which was done in Ex 16, 17, & 18.
Said Stanley delivered the sight draft for $1000.00 and said Thomas acknowledged and delivered said two deeds and delivered location certificates no Colo 7 but fraudulently failed to deliver said pretended agreement of Feb 30th 1879, and said Stanley not knowing that said pretended agreement was in existence and the same being fraudulently and falsely secreted and with-held from him, accepted the deeds and location certificates and paid the money by the draft of $1000.00, which was paid by the Bank to Thomas.
And there-upon said Thomas expressed to Stanley his entire satisfaction with said settlement saying he had been paid for all his mines and mining property so sold to said Saltiel, and intended to leave Colorado and prospect in New Mexico and else-where
Said Saltiel and said Thomas were met at their request by said Stanley at the depot of the D&RGRWCo and the said agreement of final settlement made known to said Stanley there, who acted for both parties in what he did in the premises and Saltiel continued his journey eastward on said Railroad in the full confidence that said Thomas would deliver all the said papers including said …….agreement, and said Saltiel never knew that said paper had been withheld nor that said Thomas had claimed any right or titles to the same as an obligation,  for value of said Saltiel until he was sued on the same in the county court of Fremont County by said defendants as hereafter stated.
Complainant Saltiel has recently been informed, believes and charges that said Thomas, after he had received said $1000 from said Stanley told said Stanley he still held said …….agreement for $1500 and offered to sell ……….Stanley refused to accept  That same thereafter said Thomas proposed to said Stanley as a lawyer to assign to said Stanley a half interst in said pretended claim if said Stanley would sue upon said claim and procure judgement theron, which said Stanley refused as said proposed contract was in violation of the laws of Colorado prohibiting maintenance and obtaining money under false pretenses, that after said corrupt offers of said defendant Thomas to said Stanley were made and rejected said Saltiel, while enroute on the rail road from Cotopaxi to New York was intersepted and served with a summons in a ……..to be a…..by said Henry Thomas ….said …..based …said …..claim, which in it face was without consideration.  ………….
which record of said suit in the County court of Fremont County is refered to as of record in said Court and made part hereof.
That at the time said summons in said case was served on said Saltiel, he was on his way by rail to the City of New York on mining business of great importance to himself an d others whose rights of property to a large amount he represented in commercial and financial circles in said City of New York and was compelled to be there, and could not remain to personaly superintend the defense of said action but afterwords retained said Orson G. Stanley, an attorney at Law at Canon City to attend to the same, and file his, Saltiel’s, answer thereto.  Supposing said Stanley from his knowledge of the aforesaid settlement between Thomas and Saltiel would be able to make the proper defense and further reposing confidence in said Thomas that he would not falsely testify that said pretended agreements such as was a bonafide agreement 
(another row cut off by copy machine)
unpaid.  The Stanley not understanding said agreement of settlement in all its particulars as heretofore stated filed an answer for said Saltiel to said suit on said pretended agreement not fully con…said Saltiels defence as by reference thereto will moe fully appear and when the trial of said case came on for hearing before said County Court said Saltiel was so severely ill in the City of New York that he could not leave nor return to said Canon City to attend said trial, and so was from such sickness compelled to rely on the contents of said deed of April 21st 1880 and the honesty of said Thomas to tell the truth about his fradulent possession and holding of said paper in all of which said Saltiel was deceived by said Thomas, the said Thomas appearing by agreement with Macon & Cox as a sole witness for himself and said defendants in said case and testified as Saltiel is in………..valuable consideration in Law and in fact and that the same remained due and unpaid and that said Saltiel had received $10,000 in the….sold said mines and ores refered to in said pretended agreement, and put it out if the power of said Thomas to enforce his pretended lien on the ores of said mines described in said agreement and also that said Thomas testified at the instance and request of said Macon and Cox to all other matters and things necessary to insure a recovery on said pretended agreement.  While said Macon & Cox on their part by said Macon made affidavit as of his own knowledge to the contents of their complaint and that said sum of $1500.00 claimed thereby was due and remained wholly due and unpaid and also made another affidavit of the same import for an attachment against the property of said Saltiel which the said defendants fraudulently obtained and levied on the property of said Saltiel…….were had by said defendents in said case that on the said false testimonies of said Thomas in the absence of said Saltiel a judgement was rendered by said County Court in said case against said Saltiel for $1500 and costs of the suit.
That thereupon said Counsel o f said Saltiel aided by John D. Freeman - additional counsel employed by said Saltiel at a cost of $250.00 moved the court for a new trial of said case which motion with the affidavits of said O. G. Stanley and said Freeman then filed on the reason of said motion and were all sufficient as said Saltiel is advised believes and charges to require of said Court the granting of said new trial.
Nevertheless the said motion by the procurement of said defendents Macon and Cox was overruled and a new trial erroneously refused and appealed from by said Saltiel as of which papers….and the record thereof are herby referred to as of the record therein and made part hereof.
That only   days were given to said Saltiel to file his appeal bond in said case - that within the time limited by the Court said Saltiel filed a good and sufficient bond in said case for said appeal but on the objection of said Macon & Cox said bond was refused and by agreement between said Macon & Cox and said Saltiel the latter was allowed additional tim to get another good name as surety for said bond, which said Saltiel procured and filed said bond in said Court on the    day of   1881 there being no special time agreed upon within which said additional security should be obtained & filed the said Macon & Cox professing that good security was all that they desired and so complainant charges that he obtained said additional security and filed said bond and that the same was filed within a reasonable time and that defendants were not injured by said delay.
In the meantime the said Macon & Cox not regarding their said agreement in reference to said additional security ordered out an Execution on said judgement so fraudulently obtained and had the same levied on the property of said Saltiel and the other complainants as herein before stated and said Macon & Cox also …..to be issued a writ of garnishment on said judgement - garnisheeing and attaching in the hands of one Chas. B. Lamborne a debt of about $22,00000 more due by said Lamborne to said Saltiel which garnishment was Executed on said Lamborn before said other property had been levied on by said defendants thus making an excessive levy of $20,000.00 or more and complainant Saltiel fur-states that since the making of said levy on said property. 
(cut of by copy machine)
came from his Ranch near Cotopaxi in Fremont Co where he resides & made corrupt proposals to one of more attorneys in said Canon City offering them one half of all that they could recover of said Saltiel by suit at Law on said pretended agreement with said Thomas to testify in the case so as to procure judgement on for said sum of $1500.00 and said attorney or attorneys to bring the suit and prosecute the same to find judgement and be responsible for costs in the same.
That one or more of said attorneys so applied to by said Thomas refused to accept a retainer on these terms but that said defendents Macon & Cox were lastly applied to by said Thomas proposing the same or similar terms to them which they accepted.  And thereupon a contract was entered into as complainant Saltiel is informed believes and charges whereby said Macon & Cox in their character at a firm of practicing attorneys at Law in consideration that said Thomas assigned to them a half interest in said pretended agreement and the proceeds of the same after judgement therein to be obtained by them they the said Macon & Cox as Attorneys at Law would institute suit on the same and prosecute said suit to judgement and Execution theron and the seizure and sale of the property of said Saltiel to satisfy the same and all costs thereon.  And that said Thomas on is par undertook to testify in the case in substance that said pretended agreement was entered into by and between said Thomas and said Saltiel for a valuable consideration and that the same was all due & unpaid and to testify to such other things as said Macon & Cox should require of him to obtain judgement said pretended agreement complainant states only the said ……of this agreement as he is 

This is the end of page 23 of 39 pages.  At this point it appears the handwriting has changed.  Significantly so that only about every 3rd word can be read at this point. 

*********c2017Cotopaxi-Colony.blogspot.com All content is copyright protected and may not be copied, reproduced, reused or reposted in any manner without permission.

DNA and genealogy

A week ago, I attended a full day seminar in Denver on DNA.  The speaker was Bennet Greenspan who created Familytreedna.com.  He is the go-to source for DNA questions and I decided to ask mine!

But first, a very, very brief intro into DNA and the reasons it's important in genealogy.

yDNA - you test the male of a particular surname.  This DNA goes from father to son to son to son forever.  In 2001, I had my brother "Moore" tested for my dad's line.  I had our mom's brother "House" tested to know the DNA of my mother's father's line.

mtDNA - you test the male for his mother's mother's mother's mother's DNA.  And these "markers" are different from the yDNA markers.  I had my brother tested for our mother's line.

autosomal DNA - you can test yourself to get the matches for everyone else between your father's line and your mother's line.  I had mine done a few years ago.  It also shows the probable migration of your ancestors.  This will find "lost" cousins and track things like your mother's father's mother's father's line.

A haplogroup is an identifier that puts your DNA together with other people who have similar, but not identical DNA.

Pretty cool!  Familtreedna has now tested over 1.2 million people.  My brother and uncle were among the very first back in 2001 with kit numbers around 1600.  Lots has been learned since those early DNA tests.  However, there is no reason to retest because DNA remains the same.

My question for Mr. Greenspan was:

If you have 2 males with the same surname, yet they fall into 2 different haplogroups, can they be related?


His answer (which I have in writing):

You would have to go back 500 to 1000 generations to find a common ancestor.  In simpler terms, you might find that you had a 500th gr grandfather in common!

Can we identify that as a cousin?  Only from the generic standpoint that all humans are related and thus all humans are cousins.

Is this important to the Cotopaxi story?  Maybe.  I'll let you decide.

In a prior blog, I posted this family tree for E. H. Saltiel




E. H. Saltiel's oldest son, John Tammany Saltiel, changed his name to John Taman about 1914.  He had a son, Osborne J. Taman, who is a direct male descendant of John Saltiel, even though he has a different last name.

Osborne had 2 sons.  If they had their DNA tested, it would fall into the same Haplogroup as E. H. Saltiel.

And we can see the ancestry tree for E. H. Saltiel

Next we can go to the Jewish DNA project and look to see if Yomtov Saltiel b 1741 is shown.

He is.  You want to look for this line:




Which shows us that E. H. Saltiel would have a DNA of R-m269.

This is known as the Yomtov line.

Anyone who descends for Yom Tob (Yomtov) Shaltiel (Saltiel) will have a DNA haplogroup of R-m269.  Further, I have been able to verify E. H. Saltiel's ancestors through census records and other documents in England.

So now we know that E. H. Saltiel and the Taman brothers should have a haplogroup of R-m269.

The Saltiel in London has this family tree.

Verification of this line's DNA can be found here - where we find Elias Saltiel born in 1738.  This is known as the North Sea Line.

look for these lines:

Which again show us the Haplogroup is G-M201.

In order for the London Saltiel to be a cousin to E. H. Saltiel, he would have to go back 500 to 1000 generations in order to find a common grandfather in order to establish a cousin connection.

We can safely say that these 2 men are not cousins.  They do not have a common ancestor within the past 500 generations.  Their DNA is in different Haplogroups.

DNA proves they are not related....even through they share a common surname.

That is example number 1 for Cotopaxi.  We have another example.

Isaac Leib Shames and Benjamin Zalman Milstein are brothers.  But they have different surnames.  In Russia, they were forcing young Jews into the army and they were required to serve 25 years.  Think about that....twenty-five long years!  One way around this when there were multiple sons in a family was to find a couple who did to have children and let them adopt one of the sons.  And this is what happened to Isaac Shames and it's why he changed his name.

He could have changed his name back when he came to America.  There was nothing stopping him.  But to honor and respect the family who adopted him in order to help him avoid 25 years of Russian military service, he chose to keep the name Shames.

It has now been as much as 5 generations since Cotopaxi.  What if a Shames descendant were to marry a Milstein descendant and not realize that they have a common ancestor?  DNA can prove that for them!  And what if it's another hundred years down the line, you might want to get a DNA test no matter who you marry!

Cotopaxi also has descendants who were adopted (remember the "Finding Lena" blog?)  She was a Friedman adopted by a Snyder when she was quite young.

We also have in that same blog the story of Sam and Sarah Shuteran, adopted by Samuel Friedman....and they did not know about this adoption until much later in life.  What if they'd married a Shuteran?

First cousins can and do marry and it often works out.  But I just think I'd like to know about it before the wedding ceremony!

I'm starting to think that DNA and genealogy go hand in hand.  Certainly can prove or disprove the facts of a relationship.

***** c2016Cotopaxi-Colony.blogspot.com  All content is copyright protected and may not be copied, reproduced, reused or reposted in any manner without permission.

The Hart/Saltiel Connection

It's amazing what you can "prove" about history when creating a family tree.  I am trying to prove that E. H. Saltiel and E. S. Hart were cousins.

We know from the bigamy case that Eleazer Hart at 20 White Lion Street was the uncle of Jane Harris Saltiel so what did I do?  I searched that address.  And from that single web search which snowballed into numerous other sites, I was able to create this family tree.

Is it accurate?  Well, here are some proofs:

1)  We know that Eleazer was Jane's uncle - that fits.

2)  If you look at the 3rd generation - those in yellow, each person across the board named their first son Judah, after their father who had passed away.  Consistent with Ashkenazi naming practices. This would be the 4th generation - they are the green boxes.

3)  In the 1871 England Census, Nathan Minden, his wife Hannah and their children, Evaline, Kate, Michael and Sarah are living in the house of Rachael A. Harris with her daughter, Jane Saltiel.  Now go down the list of Aaron's children and you will find Hannah Hart, Rachel's niece, married to Nathan Minden with those 4 children.

Remember, you can click on an image to enlarge it.

Where is E. S. Hart who was at Cotopaxi?  We know his name was Eleazer Samuel Hart and that he was born in London in 1832.  We know that Ashkenazi Jews do not name their children after living ancestors.  So he could not be the son of Eleazer Hart 1791-1857, the brother of Rachel Hart.


If you look at the children of Michael Hart, another brother of Rachel, and you go down the list, we find a Samuel Hart born in 1832.  Is this our E. S. Hart?

Let's look at the names he used:

Samuel Hart -     ship's manifest, 1854
Eleasa   Hart -    1875 New York Census
Saml. Hart    -     1880 Census
Eleazar S. Hart - 1888 Denver Directory
E. Samuel Hart - 1892 Denver Directory
Samuel Hart -     1894 Denver Directory
Samuel Hart -     1900 Census
Eleazier Hart -    1907 Cook county death index

He was 22 when he came to America.  There isn't much on him in England prior to that.  If we put him in as the son of Michael Hart, that makes him a 1st cousin to Jane Harris Saltiel and a 1st cousin once removed to E. H. Saltiel.  We used to count that as a second cousin.

I think we have a good match.  I will continue to research this aspect as I have time.

Just a couple of side notes.  When doing my research I came across a website that claimed in London in the 1850s, reform Judaism was coming into play and Jew were not necessarily sticking to their custom of never naming a child after a living relative.  In this tree, we see many children with names identical to living relatives.  We need to keep in mind that each child had a Hebrew name and it is the Hebrew name that could not be giving to a living relative - not the anglicized name.

Most of the 3rd generation (green) was born in Middlesex which includes Spitalfields, Strand, Nottingham, Whitechapel, Edmonton, Adgate and other small villages.

We have already discussed why Rachel went to Bath.  To escape the stigma of the bigamy trial. To reside in an Ashkenazi community.

From the above tree, you can see that I've found her son, Judah Lewis Harris living there as wall.  His first 6 children were born there.  But Isaac and Solomon were born in Middlesex starting in 1859 which coincides with the time Rachel, Jane and Emanuel moved back to the Middlesex area.

Emanuel Harris Saltiel was clearly named after his mother's father.  His grandmother, Rachel Hart Harris, was still living in the 1871 census.

Aaron named his daughter Rachel in  1830.

Aaron's son, Emmanuel Hart, named his daughter Rachel Hart in 1854.

Aaron's daughter, Hannah, who lived with Rachel Hart Harris, named her daughter Rachel Minden in 1855.

Did the concept of not naming after the living apply to men only?  Or did all 3 of these women have different Hebrew names?

For now, I think we have a fairly good family tree and a connection between the Harts and the Saltiels.

*********c2016Cotopaxi-Colony.blogspot.com All content is copyright protected and may not be copied, reproduced, reused or reposted in any manner without permission.

Cotopaxi schools

The "london" Saltiel stated in the Westword article:

 points out that the subject is kept alive in Colorado. “The students of Cotopaxi senior year study this story as part of their local history program,” he says. “The Cotopaxi library has it as well. I can’t oblige them to set out my point of view." 

So Thursday, I drove out to the school to see what they have and what they teach.  The librarian was quite shocked!  She said they have very little about the history of Cotopaxi and that the students do not study the history of Cotopaxi.   She suggested that I contact Betsy Denney who is active in the Western Fremont History Society.  Betsy descends from longtime Cotopaxi residents and has done a great job collecting and preserving information on Western Fremont County which includes just about everything west of Canon City.

Betsy has also been a substitute teacher in the Cotopaxi school and she said,

The school does not teach anything about Cotopaxi history.    4th grade does teach Colorado history but only what is printed.  They don't ask for guest speakers.  If it isn't in the curriculum,  they don't go over any history. 

And that would make sense.  Teachers today are mandated to follow a curriculum and that is not going to include the history of Cotopaxi...and certainly nothing to do with the Jews who settled in Cotopaxi.   Anything related to Colorado history would be limited to history that was generic to the entire state.

One has to wonder where the "london" Saltiel came up with the idea that the story of the Jews in Cotopaxi is kept alive in Colorado.....considering the senior year students do not have a local history program.

The earliest school yearbook is dated 1950 and there wasn't anything else dating earlier than that about Cotopaxi.  I wish there had been!

Once again, a person can write anything.  My "job" is to prove it true or false.  In this case - 100% false!!!


*********c2016Cotopaxi-Colony.blogspot.com All content is copyright protected and may not be copied, reproduced, reused or reposted in any manner without permission.

Taking a closer look

This blog is mainly to show other genealogists how I find what I find.  But in doing so, I'm using the Cotopaxi Colony as my project.

And this morning, I made another great find to add to this story!

Here's a copy of the 1841 England Census.

On the 4th line down, I think you can see that it might be J. Lewis Harris, age 20.  However, the transcribers have it typed in as Flavie Harris.

In the top line, I think you can see Rachael Harris, age 50 and then Rachael Hart, age 80.  Again, this was transcribed as Rachael Harres, age 30 and Rachael Bart, age 30.  You would never match this up by just using an ancestry search!

Jane Harris was E. H. Saltiel's mother and is age 15 in this census.  Her brother is Judah Lewis Harris and he was age 20 at this time.

I think a rather important note is that only Flavie and Jane were listed together in this census.  So with the ages of 20 and 15, one might assume they were husband and wife.  So happy I didn't make that assumption!!!

Saltiel's grandmother was Rachel Harris, age 50 at this census and his great grandmother was Rachel Hart, age 80.  I did not have this information prior to this find.

They were living in District 6, St Bottle Without Bishopsgate, Middlesex - all now suburbs of London.

Why is this an important find?  Because I am still trying to prove the relationship of EH Saltiel to ES Hart. They would have been 2nd cousins.

This is HARD WORK!!!  Because you can't rely on transcribers, you have to widen your search, then go to the actual document and read each line.  Who knew that Flavie Harris would lead me to the census record that I needed for this family!!!


*********c2017Cotopaxi-Colony.blogspot.com All content is copyright protected and may not be copied, reproduced, reused or reposted in any manner without permission.

Zadeck (Zedek) family - also spelled Zadek, Zedak, Zeedak, Zadak....

The Zedek family (Zadeck, Zadek, Zedak, Zeedak, Zadak)

I have decided to tackle each family individually and share what I have learned about them. If additional information becomes available, I’ll come back to this post and add to it.

Their name was spelled Zedek while they were in Cotopaxi, but it has evolved to Zadeck over time. Historically, names changed often until the draft for WWI which was about 1914. After that, it seems there were very few spelling changes - thank goodness!!!

Again, the first written record of the spelling we have is from Nov, 1882. Zedek.





Saltiel wrote this in a letter dated Dec 27, 1882:

Two other families, Nudelman and Zedek, will get along well, as the heads of each are fair carpenters and builders, and have industrious families.

Julius Schwartz wrote this on March 2, 1883:

The grounds must not have been so utterly worthless if it is considered, that despite of the circumstances, that potatoes were sown as late as the end of June, and despite of the heavy hailstorms and the devastations of the thousands of grazing cattle, Loeb Zedek, as he himself states in one of his letters, which I annex hereto, has taken up thirty sacks of potatoes. Zedek’s farm is located on Oak Grove Creek, on the very same mean, narrow strip of land, on which, as the two gentlemen remark, “no beast could subsist.”

In the 1925 Spivak interview it lists them as such:

Zedek, carpenter, wife and four boys. Came from Keiff, Russia.

But after 1925, it got a bit confusing. Flora Satt in her 1950 thesis on Cotopaxi, combined Zedek and Nudelman in to one person and listed them as

20. Morris ‘Zedek’ Neeleman, with his wife Rivka, four daughters. That has led to some confusion over the years for other researchers

When I started my research into each family, the first 2 places I searched were census records and immigration records. I got lucky because this family arrived on the same ship as the Shuteran, Schradsky and the Moskowitz families. This manifest lists the Zedek family as such:

Leib Zedek age 30 M born 1852

Riwke Zedek age 28 F born 1854

Baruch Zedek age 10 M born 1872

Chascha Zedek age 8 F born 1874

Jeschaja Zedek age 6 F born 1876

Isaak Zedek age 2 M born 1880

This family arrived in NYC on March 1, 1882, and had resided in Keiw, Russland, before that (Kiev, Poland, today.) They came through Hamburg and London and the ship’s name was “Gemma”.

Because families often traveled together, I have to wonder if the Shuterans, Schradskys and Moskowitz families were related. Were the wives all sisters? That’s going to be a question for future researchers to determine.

In searching the census records, I found this family residing in Chicago in the 1910 census:

Abraham L. Zadek age 60 M born 1850
Rebecca Zadek age 60 F born 1850
Benjaman Zadek age 38 M born 1872

They were living in an apartment at 2600 State Street. It tells us that she had 9 children, 4 are still living. Rebecca and Benjaman were born in Russia, Abraham L. was born in Germany. They all speak yiddish and immigrated in 1878 (a conflict with the ships manifest above). Both father and son are carpenters.

Living at 2626 State Street in Chicago, I found the Isaac Zadek family:

Isaac Zadeck age 30 M born 1880
Etta Zadeck age 27 F born 1883
Stella Zadeck age 8 F born 1902
Roseline Zadeck age 5 F born 1905

This record does not give a year of immigration. It shows that Isaac was born in Illinois, but that his father and mother were born in Russia and spoke Yiddish. Isaac started listing his first name as Edward and by the 1930 census, ha had dropped Isaac from his name.

There is a will dated 9/5/1918 showing Rebecca Zadeck’s son as Isaac. Further research of that will which is only indexed online might show her daughter’s names.

I found an Alouis Zadeck living on 2912 Calument Street in Chicago in the 1900 census. He was married to Rosa and they have a son, Benj, born 1870 in England. And a second son, James, born in 1876 in England, married to Annie Neiman. James could be Jeschaja from the ship’s manifest? And Annie Neiman could be related to the Neiman/Newman’s who lived in Cotopaxi?

The Zadeck family seems to be short lived.

Sons James and Benjamin had no children.

I can find nothing on Chascha who was a daughter.

Their son, Isaac, had 2 daughters.

Stella married Joseph Gottlieb and they had 1 child, Rochelle. I can find nothing else for her.

Rosaline may have married a Soloman. I can find nothing else for her. 

If I learn more about this family, I will update this post



*********c2017Cotopaxi-Colony.blogspot.com All content is copyright protected and may not be copied, reproduced, reused or reposted in any manner without permission.

Flora Satt's 1950 master's thesis

In 1950, Flora Satt, a descendant of  Saul Baruch Milstein was attending Colorado University in Boulder, CO.  She was about 25 years old.  Her mother was Ethel Milstein.  Her grandfather was Menash Milstein.  And her gr grandfather was Saul Baruch Milstein.

We now know that Saul Baruch Milstein and his family did not arrive on their ship until December 1884, after the Colony had disbanded.   So while Flora is not a descendant,  she would have been closely related to numerous people who were at Cotopaxi, or descended from the Colonists.

Her research was excellent for 1950.  Her thesis is well documented.  It has been titled "unpublished thesis" - but that would only apply to then - things change.

Prior to her death in 2014, Flora gave permission to my brother, Nelson Moore, to publish her thesis.  She did not give that permission to anyone else.  You can read it in it's entirety with footnotes and bibliography here:

The Flora Satt Thesis on Cotopaxi

she titled the bibliography "critical bibliography" ,  I would interpret the word "critical" to mean "absolutely necessary".

Nelson's website link is cotopaxi-colorado.com.    He has had this current website up since 2001.  He had other websites before that.  His web pages clearly state that they are copyright protected.  That's the first clue that you do not have permission to copy anything from that page....but you can certainly link to that page.  Why does anyone do this?  To "protect" what is written.  To keep someone else from altering it, using it, making money from it.

Within the past year, a Saltiel living in London has created a new website.  The exact same title as Nelson's website minus the hyphen.  Of all the possible names to pick from, why did he pick that name?  Most likely for the same reason people tried to create an eBay.net website!  To get readers to go to their site, to capitalize on the work already done.

I do not go to that website for one reason only:

The author(s) of that website copied Flora Satt's thesis.  They then inserted their own comments about her writing.  And then they published it on that website.

HUGE Copyright violation!!!

It makes no sense that someone would create a new website so unquestionably identical to a website already existing, then take work from the existing website and publish it on their website.  Their intent was outright theft of website content.   They use the excuse that they cannot contact Satt's heirs for permission.  That's not how copyright law works.  If you don't have permission, you do not post.

Flora's thesis has been such a blessing to me.  I think of how much research she had to do at such a young age.  With no internet.  No email.  The newspapers had not been digitized, so she would have sat and gone through each newspaper page by page, column by column.  I often come across little checkmarks beside an article about Cotopaxi - I wonder if it was her mark.  I like to think it might have been.

She gave us oral stories, family histories and I could not have started my research without her footnotes and her critical bibliography.  For that I am ever grateful.  May her memory be a blessing to those of us who follow the Cotopaxi story.

***** c2016Cotopaxi-Colony.blogspot.com  All content is copyright protected and may not be copied, reproduced, reused or reposted in any manner without permission.