Military Minutes of the Council of Appointments, of the State of New York, page 532 1783-1821 1800 "His Excellency the Commander-in chief, on the report and recommendation of the Adjutant General, having thought it proper to form a new company in the said regiment (Otsego Co. Militia), Resolved that Levi Austin be and he is hereby appointed the Captain; Giles Sisson, the Lieutenant, Elijah Place the Ensign of the said Company." I checked to see if this could be Giles Sisson(4). Giles himself did not have a son Giles, but John Sisson(5) had a son Giles, born in 1775. If the first child of Giles(4) was born in 1747, Giles would probably have been abt. age 20. His ninth child is the last one I have an alleged birth date for, which was 1770. It would seem that Giles(4) was probably too old to be appointed in 1800. But he was of Otsego County. The only other one would have been Giles(6), son of John, Sr.(5), who would have been approximately 25 years of age. This is a very important vital record, and I was surprised to find it. Please give me your thoughts on this, as to which Giles you think it probably was. Mary Jo

Thanks for the list of Gileses, David. I agree with Mary Jo that Giles(4) was highly likely not the one who was named Lieutenant due to his age at the time, if he was even still living by then. Carol Sisson Regehr > Military Minutes of the Council of Appointments, of the State of New York, > page 532 1783-1821 > > 1800 > >"His Excellency the Commander-in chief, on the report and recommendation of the Adjutant General, having >thought it proper to form a new company in the said regiment (Otsego Co. Militia), Resolved that Levi Austin >be and he is hereby appointed the Captain; Giles Sisson, the Lieutenant, Elijah Place the Ensign of the said >Company." > > I checked to see if this could be Giles Sisson(4). Giles himself did not have a son Giles, but John >Sisson(5) had a son Giles, born in 1775. > If the first child of Giles(4) was born in 1747, Giles would probably have been abt. age 20. His ninth >child is the last one I have an alleged birth date for, which was 1770. > It would seem that Giles(4) was probably too old to be appointed in 1800. But he was of Otsego County. >The only other one would have been Giles(6), son of John, Sr.(5), who would have been approximately 25 years >of age. > This is a very important vital record, and I was surprised to find it. Please give me your thoughts on >this, as to which Giles you think it probably was. >Mary Jo