CAGLE-L Archives

Archiver > CAGLE > 2000-07 > 0963623804


From: "David Cagle" <>
Subject: Re: George son of Leonhart
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:16:44 -0500


Cagle List,
I may have caused the confusion when I questioned two George Cagles, one
born in 1730, and one born in 1750, and both died ca 1825 in Montgomery Co.,
NC. My statement was that there was only one George Cagle who died in
Montgomery Co., NC in 1825.

Many moons ago, it was thought that David Cagle (2) was born ca 1710,
therefore, George, who was probably born in the 1740's could be the son of
David. It has been determined that David was born April 29, 1728, which
would make him a little young to be the father of George. Possible, not
probable, and making it likely that George was the son of Leonard the
immigrant. This is my opinion.

I think whoever was removing George from his list was removing a George
that was born in 1730, however, at the same time was keeping George who was
likely born in the 1740's, and died in 1825 Montgomery Co., NC. Have I
confused things more?

David
Hardin Co., TN


----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: George son of Leonhart


> Howdy Tom and others:
>
> I am happy to see that when a stupid suposition ocurrs there are so many
> to point out
> the falicy.
>
> Thanks all, for helping to keep me on track!!
>
> Lee Cagle
> Okla City
> P. S. I have added George b. 1730 back as one of Leonhart's children
> which I am sure
> Ole George appreciates.
>
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:35:12 -0400 "Tom & Debbie Cagle"
> <> writes:
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > I'm a little confused over this George discussion and for what it is
> > worth thought I'd add my 2 cents.
> >
> > Lee wrote:
> >
> > I tend to agree with David and am deleting George b. 1730 from
> > Leonard.
> > Does anyone
> > disagree and if so explain why? This is not my line, so I don't
> > keep
> > source documents.
> >
> > Lee:
> >
> > Does this mean you are deleting George as a possible son of
> > Leonhart? If that is what you mean, at this point I think that
> > would be premature, based solely on the discussion that has been
> > going on about the Georges. George b. circa 1730 has been a commonly
> > accepted son of Leonhart. Further, I do not understand your comment
> > about agreeing with David. An e-mail from David indicates he leans
> > toward him being a brother of David c1728 and hence a son of
> > Leonhart.
> >
> > The bottom line for me is that I see nothing to say that a George
> > wasn't the son of Leonhart and I would hate to see you delete him
> > based solely on this discussion.
> >
> > Tom Cagle
> > Saegertown, PA
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
> Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
> Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
>

This thread: