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

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”
Posted by: D G Van Curen (ID *****7681) Date: December 08, 2002 at 02:16:21
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by Ed Gusman of 1583

Eddy Says: "Your comparison does not CONCLUSIVELY prove that the two women both named Mary Clock, are not two identically named but uniquely different women with each married to two different men one named Lawson and the other named Lossing. The fact that all are in the same church record,is not conclusive evidence that the two women are one and the same woman or evidence that two men, one named Lossing the other Lawson are one and the same man. The fathers names for each person must be known before you can conclusively establish that they are one and the same individual."

Let's see...2 Mary Clocks living at New Hackensack married to 2 different men whose names sound exactly alike, but are spelled slightly different....and applying that same logic to a half dozen other couples in the same area, including Hannah Lossing and Hannah Lawson, both married to Cornelius F Van Sicklen. Sorry Eddy, but the evidence is extremely conclusive, and any intelligent person would agree. If there is any doubt whatsoever, a simple call to the Church in question will give you a definitive answer. Why are you so stubbornly opposed to checking things out? The answer is obvious. If you make the call to the Fishkill Church you know they will verify that Hannah Lossing married to Cornelius Van Sicklen and Hannah Lawson married to Cornelius Van Sicklen and Annetje Lawson married to Cornelius Van SIcklen constitutes one woman, not 3. If you make the call to Poughkeepsie Church, you know they will provide the birth date match for Cornelius of Brighton, and that they will verify that Van Siclen is a commonly used alternate spelling for Van Sicklen, and that both spellings appear often in reference to a single individual. Those two calls will absolutely tie Fishkill Maria to Brighton Cornelius...with his death date and her birth date CONCLUSIVELY establishing Brighton Maria as the person who married Luther Eastling. A little honest research and a couple of phone calls....and you will be able to put Ferd and Fanny's affadavits in the trash can, where they belong. They are still works of fiction. A fact you cannot ignore or change, simply by not making the phone calls.

Eddy Says: "For information only. I include this: I checked the LDS records in an attempt to determine how many centuries earlier the following names began. That single Web Site listed the following:

LASSING - I stopped counting at 300 names. EARLIEST FOUND WAS 1579 in England. Scattered throughout Europe.

LOSSING - I stopped counting at 300. EARLIEST FOUND WAS 1684. Scattered in Europe and North America.

LAWSON - Stopped counting at 344. EARLIEST FOUND 1591 in England and throughout the world."

I acknowledge the fact that those names appear around the world. But we are not talking about "around the world", we are talking about specific members of specific "Dutch" churches, specifically in Dutchess County, New York. Back to the phone. Call the Churches and call the people researching the descendants of Pieter Pieterse Lassen...you will find all the references you need to learn that EVERYONE, none excluded, living in Dutchess County in the 1700s AND attending Dutch Churches there under the names LOSSING, LASSING, and LAWSON are descendants of Pieter Pieterse Lassen...and that all 3 are alternate spellings routinely used interchangeably by a single individual. Ask questions and research...that is how a person learns...which explains why you still know nothing.

Eddy says: "It is finally over unless a time arrives that you can provide conclusive evidence that Catherine Johnson was never born and Cornelius Van Siclen was not a Revolutionary Veteran. Neither of which you can currently prove." Prove it? I don't even suggest it. Catharine Johnson was Born. She was married to Cornelius Van Sicklen, and he was a Revolutionary war soldier. They lived in Rumbout New York, and he died in 1806. And Maria was related to him....she was his great granddaughter. I truly wish it was over, but I suspect you will continue to cling to the fantasy no matter what evidence is provided. It is mine and Richard's responsibility to insure that you are not successful in misleading Eastlings who wish to know who their real ancestors are. If you truly wish it to be over, admit your errors and leave research to researchers.

Van


Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

http://genforum.genealogy.com/vansickle/messages/1012.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