If you work backwards through the various posts on this subject, and read each thoroughly, there are many specific references made that can easily be verified. The Fishkill DRC baptism of Maria, daughter of Cornelius, which identifies her birth date as Sep 15, 1801 can be verified through the Church, or microfilm of the Church records(LDS Family History Center). The records of the Van Sicklen Cemetery in Murray, Ontario...also published, and also on LDS Microfilm....when compared to records of the Fishkill, New Hackensack and Poughkeepsie Church records, prove that Cornelius, father of Maria born Sep 15, 1801 at Fishkill, was the same Cornelius buried in Murray...death date, Mar 19, 1850. Compare those dates to the certified Bible entries....Sep 15, 1801 for the birth of Maria, wife of Luther Eastling, and Mar, 1850, for the death of her father. Cornelius had a son named Ferdinand, baptised at New Hackensack DRC, Oct 21, 1798(another record easily verified), and said Ferdinand is buried in the Van Sicklen Cemetery in Murray(died Jun 13, 1881, also easily verified). One of the deponents in the DAR application is a Ferdinand Eastling, son of Luther and Maria. Interesting coincidence, don't you agree. Another interesting coincidence: When Luther was approved for a Crown Land Grant for his service to Canada during the War of 1812, he could have chosen any available Crown Land for his grant. Where did he locate? Murray, Ontario(1846). Reference: Archive # 01c13 123/026, for Lot C26, BRC, Murray, ID8. As an FYI, Cornelius' land was lot B29. Why did Luther pick a lot so close to the Cornelius Mr Gusman insists is not related? To shortcut your search for that record, go to the Canada Digital Atlas Website:
Search under the name "VanSicklin"(no spaces), look for "F" VanSicklin, Cornelius' son, who is still on the land in 1878. Mr Gusman insists on exact spelling, yet the land record was for more than 50 years was under "Van Sicklin", while the cemetery located there clearly bears the name "Van Sicklen". Exact spelling never was a focus in early record keeping. Serious genealogists are well aware of that fact.
If there is anything you would like a specific reference to, all you have to do is ask. The whole controversy centers around the name "Catharine Johnson", wife of Cornelius Van Sicklen and named as Maria's mother in the affadavits. The name originated with a marriage license record found by Violet in 1906, of a Cornelius Van Siklen and Catharine Johnson, license issued June 11, 1771. Reference to that license was included in the DAR application and claimed to be Maria's parent's. However, baptismal records for the couple, when matched to the family of Cornelius Van Sicklen of Rombout New York as listed in his 1806 WILL, clearly prove that Cornelius married to Catharine in 1771 died in Rumbout New York in Feb, 1806. He had a daughter named Maria...and the will notes her married name as "FREER" in 1806. I can provide all the specific references to those baptisms, the Will, etc. All easily verifiable. Even Mr Gusman admitted that the 1771 marriage was not Maria's parents, but still insists that Maria's mother was a Catharine Johnson, for no reason other than the "affadavits say so". My theory on what happened: Violet found the marriage license...it was the only license issued to a Cornelius, ever...she assumed it must be Maria's parent's, since there were no other licenses issued to a Cornelius(right by default), declared same to be true to Ferdinand and Fanny...and they stated the same information in their affadavits. Violet didn't realize that Church marriages didn't require a license. Simple as that. The known errors in the DAR application cast more than a reasonable doubt on the other information...and that is why the contents of the DAR application(including the affadavits) cannot be accepted as fact without corroborating records. The only part of the entire DAR packet that is not suspect, is the Notary's certification of the Bible entries....and even they pose a question of readability, as noted by the Notary himself. Hence, 1824 is just as possible as 1814, and infinitely more logical/realistic.
A final note: I have NEVER altered anything belonging to Mr Gusman. That is an interesting claim, since Mr Gusman has NEVER sent me anything. I have repeatedly asked him for any evidence/documents/references substantiating the claims made in the affadavits...and he freely admits that there aren't any. He did offer to send me the contents of the DAR file at one time...but I didn't need them...as I already had them in my possession. The DAR file is readily available to anyone who wants it, and my personal file readily acknowledges that the date there is different than the date certified by the Notary, and why it is different. While I have very good reasons for believing the date to be 1824, I certainly would not insist that others use it, until I can prove conclusively that it is correct. I haven't located the marriage record, as yet, but I am still looking, as I would like to put that one controversy to rest. As to Mr Norman's comments about the 3 unnamed children being "ommitted"...what are their names and when were they born? Did they live long, or did they die in infancy. Why is it that noone can find a reference to them outside the DAR application? I am not saying they didn't exist, because I am sure they did. I just need some basic information before they are added to the family file. I do have a side note in my file that 10 children were noted, but only seven can be identified.
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|