Big changes have come to — all content is now read-only, and member subscriptions and the Shop have been discontinued.
Learn more

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

Posted by: Van Date: May 25, 2001 at 22:11:41

Since Mr Gusman posted the contents of the affadavits, I would point to the comment by the Notary stating the exact date of Father Van Sicklen's death was "too indistinct to read". I submit that father's death date was not the only date "too indistinct", and that the notary thought the marriage date looked like 1814, when it was really 1824. Until the actual bible entry is submitted for inspection, that is a question unanswered. To the point, Mr Gusman neglected to give us a reason why a couple would marry in 1814, then have their first child in 1825, followed then by births at regular intervals. Until that gap is adequately explained, the 1814 date makes no sense, especially considering that she was 12 years old in 1814. Mr Gusman either needs to prove that the bible entry was not misread, or provide an actual marriage record taken from a Canadian archive.

Ferdinand and Fanny were elderly at the time of the affadavits..Ferdinand in his 80s, and Fanny in her 70s....making statements based solely on memory alone, nearly 60 years after the family moved away from Canada, and nearly 40 years after their mother's death. No documentation was offered to corroborate their claims, and the name "Catherine" does not appear in the family Bible at all, or in any Eastling writing prior to 1906. Their statements, therefore, constitute unsubstantiated family folklore, and as such carry little or no value, especially considering that ALL evidence known to date contradicts those claims, and no evidence exists to support them. As mentioned before, the only document contained in the DAR application that has any genealogical value is the certified Bible entries, the contents of which(Maria's birth date, her father's death date), support my conclusions and effectively disprove the folklore of Fanny and Ferdinand's affadavit. Once again I submit....Violet Voorhees, in 1906, found the name Catherine Johnson on a marriage license record and submitted that as the parents of Maria Van Sicklen Eastling. It has already been proven that Cornelius and Catherine married in 1771, as spelled out in the DAR app, are not the parents of Maria, thereby establishing the source of the erroneous name in Fanny and Ferdinand's affadavits. From Maria's birth in 1801 up to Violet's discovery in 1906...105 document, no family record, no family letter, no government record, no cemetery record, no church record, no record of any kind exists that points towards Maria's mother having the name Catherine, let alone specifically Catherine Johnson. The name "Catherine Johnson" was an error, a name that had never been heard in the Eastling family until 1906. Again I say, call Mr Gusman's bluff. Ask him to send all proof he has of this ridiculous claim...excepting those documents found in Violet Voorhees DAR application. The contents of the DAR application are all there is that says Catherine Johnson is Maria's mother. All known evidence, all real evidence says Hannah Lawson was Maria's mother. Fanny and Ferdinand did not relate the name Catherine Johnson out of personal knowledge. They simply repeated Violet Voorhees' error, believeing that Violet had uncovered the previously unknown name of their grandmother. Sorry, Eddy, the facts don't lie. Maria's mother was Hannah Lawson - proven, and that is the way the record will stand. While folklore makes entertaining reading, it is not gospel and must be substantiated.


Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

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