|Posted By:||Douglas Van Curen|
|Subject:||Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”|
|Post Date:||October 23, 2002 at 17:02:47|
|Forum:||Vansickle Family Genealogy Forum|
Again Eddy is trying to put words into my mouth. I never said that Catharine Johnson was a "fraudulent creation". To the contrary, I believe Violet truly THOUGHT she had found the right name in the marriage license records. I don't believe any of these people KNOWINGLY made false statements. They simply made mistakes, based upon Violet's flawed research. And Eddy is overlooking scenario that is more realistic than what he is selling. The children certainly all knew Cornelius' wife as "Grandma". They probably knew that people her own age called her "Hannah", but also knew that "Hannah" was not her given name. And they had probably never heard, or couldn't remember, her maiden name. Eddy ASSUMES everyone knows the full maiden name of their grandmother, but such an assumption is not valid. So, we are back to the proof issue. 3 people made statements in a 1907 DAR application. Real evidence clearly proves certain of those statements to be false. If Eddy wants to make a case in favor of the affadavits, he MUST provide supporting evidence. People did not live invisible lives in the 1800s. If the people he claims to have existed did exist, then there is some record of them, somewhere. He claims Cornelius served in the Revolution, but Revolutionary war records...including muster rolls and pay records...say he didn't. Eddy says Catharine Johnson was Maria's mother, but no actual records exist that even suggest that to be a possibility. The 1771 marriage record of Cornelius to Catharine Johnson noted in the DAR application as Maria's parents are for a couple who lived their lives in Dutchess County, said Cornelius dying in 1806, not 1850. Eddy cannot produce evidence of any Cornelius in Canada early 1800s other than the one in Brighton - who is Maria's true father. While the affadavits have some value as "old" family writings, they simply do not contain anything in the way of "proof". And since we know the marriage record citation used is NOT Maria's parents, the name(Catharine Johnson) itself is suspect.
Sorry Eddy...but family folklore doesn't fly. Real records do the talking, and they still say Hannah Lawson was Maria's mother. If you want to prove me wrong, you'll have to go out and find the records to back up the claims. And, of course, we all know that won't happen, because fictitious people don't leave a records trail.