|Subject:||Re: Catherine Johnson?|
|Post Date:||July 06, 2001 at 17:43:10|
|Forum:||Vansickle Family Genealogy Forum|
You stand true to your well known genealogical standards and analytical abilities. Much of what you said, I have been saying for a year now...i.e.: The notary cannot attest to the truth of the Bible entries, only that the entries were there, and that he read same, to the best of his abilities. The bible, itself, may hold many answers. When was it printed? I recently ran across one with hand entered 1770s dates. Those proved to not be original source entries, as the Bible was printed in the 1850s. When the Eastling Bible was printed might tell us something about how reliable the dates might be, and whether they were entered by the principles, or a later generation. Examination of the handwritten entries might enlighten us as to whether the Notary acurately transcribed same, or if he "guessed" on some hard to read entries. I learned very early that: While family folklore makes entertaining reading, it often contains errors. The DAR affadavits contain little more than family folklore.
The claim among my adversaries is that "Annetje Lawson" and "Hannah Lawson" are different people, again because of the spelling. With them, spelling is the only issue, and records not having the correct spellings are deliberately overlooked. Mr Gusman finally admitted that the 1771 couple (Cornelius VS & Catharine Johnson) were not Maria's parents, but not because of the evidence...because of the way his name was spelled in the marriage record. Wasn't "Van Siclen".
I guess what I am trying to say here, and all along, is that there is a lot more to genealogy research than simply accepting 2 statements from elderly family members as absolute gospel. There is no substitute for putting in the time and digging out the records that ultimately prove a lineage. I have always been prepared to lay out my "evidence" for all to see. In fact, I published it at my Family Treemaker site, complete with enough information to guide the serious to the actual records. Mr Gusman has never presented any evidence, as he does not have any to present. He simply expects everyone to believe that Canadian records do not exist....despite the fact that I have had no trouble finding an abundance of same.
I do appreciate your stopping by to give us your "professional" opinion.