Now this is absolutely hilarious. Mr Gusman says:
"Maria Van Siclen's 1814 marriage record to Luther Eastling shimmers and sparkles like a diamond tiara on the pinnacle of a Pharoah's obelisk on a beautiful day. Maria Van Siclen's marriage record crushes all semblence of credibility for the link between the Eastling and Van Sicklen lineage's"
There seems to be a major problem with that statement, Mr "Exact Spelling". YOU DON'T HAVE A MARRIAGE RECORD FOR A MARIA VAN SICLEN!!!! The marriage record is for Maria VAN SICLIN. If you are going to insist on everyone using EXACT SPELLINGS, then the same rule applies to YOU!!!
I want to thank you for providing all the additional references that further prove that you, and you alone, have decided that VAN SICLEN is the exact spelling, and no other is allowed. The Notary says it was the "family bible of Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria his wife, whose maiden name was Van Sicklin", and the marriage was to "Maria Van Siclin". The additional family references make it very clear that they themselves are unsure as to exact spelling....assuming that the family really used one exclusive exact spelling, which many 19th century families didn't. The fact that Maria's bible, itself, uses more than one spelling of the family name, really illustrates the fact that the family was not locked into ONE EXACT SPELLING, as you would have us believe.
I also appreciate you providing the additional references to conflicting testimony by the family. One says Maria's parent's died in Canada, another says Wisconsin. Further proof that you have nothing in your possession but family folklore. Lewis included the name "Katharine" in his 1955....but we all know where that error originated...with Violet's marriage license mistake in 1906. He was just repeating the same mistake you are...which was the same mistake that Fanny and Ferdinand repeated.
Mr Gusman continues to miss the point. None of the family items included in your scrapbook have any real value, in terms of Proof, and that includes the affadavits. Those items are nothing but family folklore. Genealogy is not a matter of taking one piece of paper and declaring it to be the one truth of the universe, to the exclusion of all else, simply because the statement was made under oath. I want to know what gives Mr Gusman the sole right to decide what pieces of the family folklore are considered truth, and which have no value. Compare ALL of the family letters, DAR app, Affadavits, Notary Certification as a collective whole, and one thing is abundantly clear...exact spelling is NOT a an issue. Another thing that is also clear....Contradictions are rampant, and the stories often conflict. So how is the debate settled? Records...real records of real events, as they occurred. Things like the Sep 15, 1801 birth of Maria matched to the bible, and the March, 1850 death of her father, matched to the cemetery record. I have the evidence that ties the records together There lies your proof. Think about it....2 Corneliuses who died in March, 1850, both having a daughter named Maria born exactly Sep 15, 1801. Any intelligent person will quickly recognize this as one family, not 2. That is simply too much coincidence to occur in nature. I DON"T claim that Luther's wife spelled her maiden name exactly VAN SICKLEN during her lifetime. I really don't know, because I have never seen anything she has written....and neither have you. It really doesn't matter what spelling you assign to her maiden name, however, that part is absolutely irrelevant. Fact remains that the well documented evidence proves her to be Hannah Lawson's daughter. An alternate spelling of the family name won't change that fact. There is no falsification here....simply the reality that only a complete idiot would wave an EXACT SPELLING banner, when the only documents in his possession prove that HIS preferred spelling of VAN SICLEN, is not even the preferred spelling of the 1.Bible, 2. Daughter Fanny, 3. Granddaughter Violet, or even 4. Lewis Eastling in 1955.
This forum has grown strangely quiet. I suspect that everyone else, just like me, is waiting for you to explain in detail how you take Van Sicklin and Van Sicklin from the Notary's certification of the family bible, and somehow create the Van Siclen spelling that you insist is the one and only exact spelling. You don't have so much as 1 piece of paper regarding Maria's lineage dated before 1906, but you know EXACTLY how Cornelius spelled his name in the 1700s. How did you determine that. We all want to know. All you have is a set of 20th century documents and letters that are unsupported by real evidence, and are in direct conflict with each other.
Since everyone was so quick to pounce on me before they knew the facts about the spelling variations of the source documents, I would like to now hear from all of you about your honest and informed opinions with regard to Mr Gusman's claim that Maria's lineage can only be spelled "Van Siclen", and all other spellings of the name are impossible. So quick you were to throw me under the bus on Mr Gusman's word that the documents only included the VAN SICLEN spelling, so....do you still feel the same? From a professional perspective, family letters, family affadvaits, and DAR applications have one value in genealogy research....to give us an idea of where to look for records. All of the above commonly contain errors, so cannot be considered as "Proof" without supporting documentation.
Bluntly put, Mr Gusman's claims are unsubstantiated and unsupported by any 18th or 19th century physical evidence of the family in question. The "VAN SICLEN" exact spelling is nothing more than a fantasy of his own making.
|Home | Help | About Us | Site Index | Jobs | PRIVACY | Affiliate|
|© 2007 The Generations Network|