Starting Sept. 5, 2014, Genealogy.com will be making a big change. GenForum message boards, Family Tree Maker homepages, and the most popular articles will be preserved in a read-only format, while several other features will no longer be available, including member subscriptions and the Shop.
 
Learn more


Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Surnames: Eastling Family Genealogy Forum

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible
Posted by: Ed Gusman (ID *****7908) Date: December 09, 2002 at 18:57:29
In Reply to: Re: Maria Van Siclen Bible by D G Van Curen of 69

Doug wrote - He boldly proclaimed the DAR contents to be true, without bothering to look for records to verify the claims, and now his inflated ego won't allow him to admit his mistakes.

Gusman - You appear not to know the difference between the DAR application and the affidavits.

I will explain - The DAR application is the membership form completed by Violetta wherein she wrote the name of her veteran, his military service and a few minor items. It was notarized by the notary, then submitted and eight months later it was rejected for what reason we don't know.The DAR application had only 4 correct entries out of many entries. Violetta's name, The notary's name, the name of Catherine Johnson and the various approval dates were correct. Everything else was wrong.

I HAD TOLD YOU THAT NEARLY TWO YEARS AGO.

Nearly two years later you still do not understand that the DAR application was so seriously flawed and unacceptable that it was rejected by the DAr. The DAR then requested that people who knew Cornelius Van Siclen write affidavites providing his name and what if anything they knew about his war service.

The Affidavites were personal testimonies by Violetta, Fanny Eastling and Ferdinand. They each testified under a sworn oath in front of a notary. They explained who they were, where they lived, who their parents were and a testimony that their grandfather was a Revolutionary Veteran, Among other items, Ferdinand stated that he knew his grandfather in his lifetime, that the family at one time had the service records of his grandfather but they had been lost. Fanny also testified where her father had died and that she had heard about her grandfathers Revolutionary service from her mother. She also said that her mother Catherine Johnson was the first wife of Violetta.

Violettas affidavit described her parents, a bit about herself and also contained the notarized and certified Bible entries written probably in 1814 shortly after her marriage to her husband. There were also a few additional entries.

DAR headquarters had rejected the DAR application. Over eight months later after the DAR had received the affidavits, Violetta's membership was approved on the basis of what the affidavits contained and not on what the flawed DAR application contained.

Each post that you create Douglas, your gopher hole is becoming deeper and deeper.

TRY THIS ON FOR FIT.

Dec 9 2002 to Doug and Richard

Why Richard and Doug want to continue their merit less rhetoric and dialog is a mystery to myself.

They have not able to provide evidence supporting their following allegations.
…………………………………………………………………

ALLEGATIONS BY RICHARD AND DOUG.

Catherine Johnson was not the mother of the deponents or wife of affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen.
Catherine Johnson was a fictitious woman.

Affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen was not a Revolutionary Veteran.
Affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen did not die in Quebec, Canada.
Affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen is not buried in Quebec, Canada.
Affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen was not a Revolutionary Veterean

I have consistently asked the two researches to provide evidence, which will support their allegations that the deponent’s testimony is wrong. They have consistently refused or have been unable to find the evidence to support their allegations. The burden of proving alleged errors is on the affidavits because they made the charges of alleged errors.
…………………………………………………………………..

ALLEGED EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE RESEARCHERS TO SUPPORT THEIR ALLEGATIONS.

Catherine Johnson -The deponents formed a conspiracy to create a fictitious name for the wife of Cornelius Van Siclen. Doug and Richard have not been able to provide evidence proving that affidavit Catherine Johnson is not the wife of affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and affidavit mother of Maria Van Siclen.

Alleged evidence that Affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen – is buried in Brighton Cemetery, Ontario, Canada and was married to Annetje Lawson/Lasson. No evidence provided which would prove that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen is not buried in Quebec, Canada or is married to the Annetje Lawson/Lasson ostensibly buried in Brighton Cemetery, Ontario, Canada..

Alleged evidence that Affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen is not a Revolutionary Veteran – The two researchers cannot find official Revolutionary records for his service – consequently they allege that he did not serve. Considering that thousands of Revolutionary records may be recorded with variant spellings of names, including that of Van Siclen, burned, lost, otherwise destroyed, records not located prove only that a record of his service has not been found to date or may never be found. Speculation not proven is not proof that C. Van Siclen did not serve. The two researches each de-emphasize the significance or value of accurate name spelling, stating it is of no importance for identifying people in Colonial times. Records of Cornelius Van Siclen’s Revolutionary Service may be under a variant spelling of Van Siclen or may indeed be lost. Missing records do not in themselves prove Cornelius Van Siclen did not serve. The allegations of Doug and Richard are not provable and exist only in their imagination fueling their speculation. When searching the Revolutionary records for Cornelius Van Siclen the two researchers apply “exact” spelling standards to Van Siclen. A hypocritical research technique designed to prove their preconceived allegations are true that Cornelius Van Siclen did not serve. Where as, when the researchers transposed Hannah Lossing to Annetje Lawson/Lasson exact spelling standards were ignored. ………………………………………………………………….

REBUTTAL BY ED

Catherine Johnson - Why doesn’t the alleged grandmother Annetje Lawson/Lasson’s or the alleged name, Hannah, appear in the transcripts and DAR application as the alleged wife of Cornelius Van Siclen,. If as alleged by Doug the deponents grandmother was Hannah, then Hannah or a blank spouses box should appear on the DAR application. Ferdinand and Fanny Eastling grew from childhood to 11 and 20 years respectively prior to moving to the U.S. in 1848 (Annetje died in 1849). If they had known Annetje Lawson/Lasson or Hannah as the alleged wife of affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and their alleged grandmother for 20 and 11 years, the name Annetje Lawson/Lasson or Hannah would be the name on the DAR application and the affidavits.

Affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen - Doug and Richard allege that both names, Catherine Johnson and Van Sickle appearing on the DAR application are fictitious names. Overlooked by the researchers is the fact that if Catherine Johnson, a name known to the deponents until ages 20 and 11 respectively, is the result of a conspiracy, then Van Sickle (a name not known to the deponents), and on the DAR application, is also the result of the same conspiracy. The deponents knew the correct names of their grandparents Catherine Johnson and Van Siclen, as evidenced by the affidavits. Why then a conspiracy to create new and fictitious names for their grandparents? The name Van Sickle on the DAR application is evidence in itself that there had been no conspiracy conversations between Violetta and the deponents prior to Violetta submitting her application. If Violetta had known the real name of her Veteran Cornelius Van Siclen, which the deponents would have told Violetta during conspiracy planning, then Violetta would have entered Van Siclen and not Van Sickle on her DAR application. If there had been a conspiracy to create a fictitious Van Sickle and Catherine Johnson, why then did the conspirators not write the conspired name of Van Sickle along with that of Catherine Johnson into their affidavits as opposed to the name Van Siclen, which they wrote?

……………………………………………………………….

AFFIDAVIT VAN SICLEN AND WIFE CATHERINE JOHNSON VERSUS BRIGHTON CEMETERY VAN SICLEN AND ANNETJE LAWSON/LASSON - AS PARENTS OF MARIA VAN SICLEN

Not an issue that needs to be addressed – the thinking that the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen is an ancestor of Maria Van Siclen is dependant on (1) proving that affidavit Catherine Johnson is not the wife of affidavit Van Sicklen. (2) proving that the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen is the identical Van Sicklen in the Van Sicklen genealogy. Number (1) is impossible to prove because the affidavits state that Catherine Johnson was the wife of affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and the researchers have no means to disprove the testimony (2) is easily proved with a photo or pencil tracing and requires that someone take the photo or makes a pencil tracing.
………………………………………………………………..

Conclusion – Doug expended huge amounts of time and effort attempting to prove that the affidavit name Cornelius Van Siclen and Maria Van Siclen should have been spelled as Van Sicklen. He constantly ridiculed me for my unrelenting refusal to be swayed into altering my belief in the affidavit spelling of Van Siclen. Doug devoted himself to applying ridicule, sarcasm and additional invectives to put down my belief that the “exact spelling” for Van Siclen appearing the affidavits was the correct and only spelling.

In the end, Doug was notified that the Brighton Cemetery grave marker, which Doug had always “assumed” had the named Van Sicklen engraved on it, in actual fact did not have the Van Sicklen name engraved. It had the name Van Siclen engraved on it. Doug had to eat a lot of crow and admit his faux pas. The Van Siclen spelling in the affidavits and transcribed Bible entries was correct indeed. That entire saga is an excellent example of what can and does happen when researchers, such as Doug, apply creative research techniques and speculation as opposed to looking for a paper trail when following the spelling of names. Both Doug and Richard have not yet provided evidence that provides a conclusive paper trail which would prove that the Cornelius Van Sicklen and Annetje Lawson/Lasson in the Van Sicklen genealogy are in fact the same people as the Cornelius Van Siclen and Annetje Lawson/Lasson on the Brighton cemetery marker.

Proof is no more difficult than obtaining a photograph or pencil tracing of the Brighton Cemetery marker showing the name Annetje/Hannah Lawson/Lasson or just A./H Lawson/Lasson on the same marker as Cornelius Van Siclen .

I have in a previous posting requested that either Doug or Richard send me a photo or pencil tracing of the marker. They have not done so. If there is anyone living in Brighton, Ontario Canada who could take the time to take a photo of the marker or even make a pencil tracing, I would certainly appreciate it. Send it as an e-mail attachment to - < legacy@merr.com > or snail mail to Ed Gusman 738 Mellum Drive, Stoughton, WI 53589. A handwritten/typed exact copy of the record of their burial in the Brighton Cemetery e-mailed to me is sufficient. I am quite willing to accept the word of someone not connected with this on going argument.

Ed Gusman





Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

http://genforum.genealogy.com/eastling/messages/11.html
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

Proximity matching
Add this forum to My GenForum Link to GenForum
Add Forum
Home |  Help |  About Us |  Site Index |  Jobs |  PRIVACY |  Affiliate
© 2007 The Generations Network