Let me begin by clearly stating that this is my opinion.

Daniel Frederick Bakeman was granted a Revolutionary War soldier’s pension by a special act of Congress in 1867. Yes, you are reading that correctly – in 1867.

He was granted a pension in spite of having no proof of service and he claimed to have been born in 1759.

He is also a recognized Patriot by the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution and multiple ladies have joined as his descendants.

However, while I hate to be the one to question the man, I don’t believe he was 107 years old nor do I believe he was old enough to have served in the Revolutionary War.

Why? Well, first look at the photograph taken of Mr. Bakeman in 1868:

If I knew nothing about this man, I’d guess that he was in his late 70s or early 80s – most definitely NOT 107 years old.

Next, what do primary records tell us about the man?

There are few birth records for early New York, place of his birth, but there are some baptismal records. His parents were reportedly Philip Bachman and Catharina Muller.

I did find a baptismal record for one Daniel Frederick Bachman in New York in 1773:

Whether this is the same man, I can’t say, but the combination of names – Daniel Frederick – with the Bachman surname does bring up many hits.

Hank Jones, FASG, notes the Bachman family in his Palatine research and further adds a second son, Christofel, baptized in 1775.

Mr. Bachman/Bakeman, in his pension application, states that he served with Captain Varnum (Van Aernum?) and Colonel [Marinus] Willett.

Both of those men were indeed Revolutionary War veterans, but no rosters of their men have turned up connecting Daniel Frederick Bakeman (of any spelling) to their company/regiment.

If Daniel was actually the baby baptized in 1773, by 1783, he would have been an impressionable boy who perhaps saw or even met one or both men.

The 1850 census of Freedom, Cattaraugus, New York shows one Frederick Beckman (sic) aged 68 years. Also in the home were Susan, 90, Susan, 48, and Jacob, 13.

A 68 year old Frederick would be a much better fit for the man in the 1868 photograph.

The 1855 state census of New York has the same four family members at home with Fredrick Bakeman, 97, Susan, 98, Susan, 55, and Jacob N., 17. In five years – from 1850 to 1855 – Frederick aged 29 years, Susan aged 8 years, Susan 9the younger) aged 7 years and Jacob aged 4 years.

By 1860, Jacob was no longer at home, but we find Frederick, 101, Susan, 102 and Susan again, 56.

In 1870, Frederick and Susan Sr. are gone. Susan is still living in Freedom, but with the family of H. D. and Sarah Reynolds. She is listed as 70 years old.

Jacob appears to be the son of Christopher and Mariah Bakeman and was living in Tioga County, New York with his wife, two young children and Christopher Bakeman, aged 70.

A search for Susan Bakeman in 1870 also brought her up in a different house in 1850 – that of Hazeltine Reynolds, with whom she was living in 1870.

Notice that also in the home were Frederick, Susan and young Jacob. It seems the Bakemans were enumerated twice – once in Chautauqua County, dated 18 October 1850, living with the Reynolds family and identified as “Bateman” and once in Freedom, Cattaraugus County on 2 September 1850, when Frederick “Beckman” was head of household.

Sarah Reynolds, aged 27, was a Bakeman by birth.

How we have Frederick Bakeman, aged 68 and aged 88 enumerated twice in 1850. Which age, if either, was correct?

Oddly, this Daniel Bakeman hasn’t been found in the 1840 census, but there is one Daniel Bakeman, born 1810-1820. living in China, Genesee County, New York. Genesee County is just north of Chautaugua and Cattaraugus Counties, where Daniel Sr. was enumerated twice in 1850. It seems possible that Daniel in Genesee might be a son of Daniel Sr.

There is a Daniel F. Bakeman, born 1812, buried in Freedom, Cattaraugus, New York in 1851 who is said to be the son of Christopher and Hannah, but with no sources provided proving his parentage. Probate papers indicate that this “Daniel Beakman”was the same man who lived in China, Wyoming, New York in 1850 and that he died in China on 23 September 1851. His widow Mariah was executrix of his will and Jacob Bakeman was named guardian of Daniel’s son, George A. “Beakman.”

In 1860, in Freedom, Cattaraugus, New York, Jacob Bakeman, 45, was head of household in which Mariah, 45, George A., 22, Christopher, 70 and Hannah, 73, were also living. Massachusetts is the recorded birthplace of Christopher and Hannah. Jacob, Mariah and George all reported New York as their place of birth.

Remember – there is also a 13 year old Jacob Bakeman living with Frederick’s family. Is that boy a son of Jacob?

Jumping back to 1830, in Stark, Herkimer, New York, there is one Fredrick Bakeman, aged 60-70 living with a female of similar age plus two females, aged 20-29 and one female, aged 5-9, also in the home. This fits closely with Daniel Frederick Bakeman born in 1773, with the age off by about 3 years.

In 1840, Christopher “Beckman” in Freedom is aged 40-49, so born 1791-1800, with a family, but no elderly members who could be Daniel and Susan.

Neither Christopher nor Daniel Frederick Bakeman have been identified in any earlier censuses, which seems quite odd.

So, what is the bottom line here? I tend to believe that Frederick Bakeman in the 1830 census had his age group of 60-70 years incorrectly recorded by one age group and that he is the man born in 1773.

Is he Daniel Frederick Bakeman? I don’t know. Part of the mystery of this man is that, if he was born in New Jersey, as some state (without any proof), the early federal censuses of New Jersey are all lost.

If he is the man in New York in 1830, then I think between 1830 and 1850, his age was considerably embellished.

The above map of New York shows counties underlined in the far western portion of the state where Daniel Frederick and Christopher Bakeman are found. The circled counties indicate where they MIGHT have lived, per censuses with men of the same name.

However, in spite of the mixed evidence, I do NOT believe that Daniel Frederick Bakeman was 109 years old when he died because the 1868 photo of him definitely does NOT depict a man well over a century old.

I researched this man as part of the America250! celebration as he is called the last man who received a Revolutionary War pension for purported and unproven war service.

Since I believe the photo alone disqualifies him from being the age he claimed and I found no proof to substantiate his reported age, aside from self-reportings on the 1850 and 1860 censuses, I am going to pass on believing his story.