Big changes have come to Genealogy.com — 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

Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited”
Posted by: Ed Gusman (ID *****7908) Date: October 19, 2002 at 19:55:46
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by Douglas Van Curen of 1585

Specifically written for the benefit of Douglas Van Curen with information for Mr. McCool. Oct 19, 2002

PREFACE - Being compelled to admit, because gravestone evidence left you no option, that the affidavits have always been correct about the Van Siclen name for Maria Van Siclen and Cornelius Van Siclen, both of affidavit fame, must have been one of the most galling and embarrassing moments of your life. I have known since I first reviewed the affidavits that none of the deponents had perjured themselves or even made unintentional errors. I have known and believed since day one that there testimony was truthful in all respects. If someone had not brought your attention to the Brighton Van Siclen gravestone (I am assuming you weren’t lying) you would still be expounding your absurd speculations about a Maria VAN SICKLEN. I AM COMPELLED TO INQUIRE - WHAT ARE YOU NOW GOING TO DO ABOUT CORNELIUS VAN SICKLEN AND ANNETJE LAWSON ALONG WITH THEIR CHILDREN - ONE OF WHICH IS MARIA - INCLUDING THEIR PROGENITOR IN YOUR VAN SICKLEN GENEALOGY. PERHAPS YOUR NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU AREN‘T MAN ENOUGH TO ADMIT TO THE HORRENDOUS RESEARCH ERROR YOU MADE WHEN YOU FAILED TO DISCOVER OR RECOGNIZE THAT THE BRIGHTON VAN SICLENS ARE BURIED UNDER A VAN SICLEN GRAVE STONE.

The point is that the affidavits are not merely half correct, as you mentioned. The affidavits are 100 percent correct as you will someday to your dismay and ongoing embarrassment be forced to admit when we uncover the final evidence for Catherine Johnson. A side thought - I have two Eastling letters neither from Fanny or Ferdinand, wherein Catherine Johnson is mentioned as the wife of Cornelius Van Siclen. If those letters prove nothing else they at least prove that there were additional Eastlings who knew about Catherine Johnson.

I strongly recommend that you give up all your absurdities about Catherine Johnson and accept the truth contained within the affidavits.

The family to which you refer (Cornelius Van Siclen born 1775 and Annetje Lawson buried in Brighton, Canada ) is not the identical family about which the deponents testify in their affidavits. Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson of affidavit fame is a different family than lies in Brighton, Canada.

Here is some speculation by myself - I assure you that it is speculation without evidence. The Brighton Van Siclen is either a descendant from another line of Van Siclen or a son of the affidavit Van Sicklen and Catherine Johnson which would make Maria Van Siclen married to Luther C. Eastling the sister of your Brighton Van Siclen.

If you could get yourself off from your ego express and read to the end of this posting you will discover that the Cornelius Van Siclen of affidavit fame was probably born about 1755 to 1760. That would make him the approximate age to have had your Brighton Van Curen as a son and Maria as a daughter, although the children’s ages could be different by as much as 26 years, a not unusual age difference even for some families today.

I make no claim to the accuracy of my preceding speculative proposal - merely present it as interesting hypothesis. Knowing what I know about you, I expect the proposal to fall on deaf errors and blind eyes with huge amounts of sarcasm and ridicule added by yourself.

Hold onto this thought - although you found your so called original source record for the Van Siclen name in the form of a Brighton, Canada cemetery stone, it is not the stone that confirmed the Van Siclen spelling. The Van Siclen spelling was confirmed when it appeared in Maria’s Bible entry about 1814. All the Brighton cemetery stone did was confirm the Bible entry that there were Van Siclen’s buried in Canada, although the Van Siclen of the affidavits is buried in Quebec, Canada. The burial of Van Siclen’s in Canada had been confirmed as occurring in 1850 by the affidavits although in that case the burial was in Quebec, Canada.

If you had listened and read what I have been telling you the affidavits contained for nearly two years and concentrated your research on Van Siclen’s as opposed to Van Sicklen’s, you may have achieved some real progress. As it now stands you know as well as I do that all of your Van Sicklen research was wasted - flamed by the presence of a Van Siclen name on a gravestone in Brighton, Canada. You are truly a person to fell sorry for.

As to the spelling of Bacauta in Fanny‘s affidavit, I will here and now state, that I don’t know what name Fanny was attempting to spell, perhaps Bacauta was a correctly spelled locality that has since vanished. Perhaps Fanny merely misspelled Barrauta as Bacauta, As I pointed out to you a few times early on, there is a Barrauta, Quebec, Canada. My suspicion is that Fanny was trying to spell Barrauta. However incorrect her spelling may have been, maturing to the age of 47, when she left for the U.S., I can assure you that Fanny knew the difference between Quebec and Ontario, which is where I assume Brighton is located. I can also unequivocally assure you that Fanny at the age of 13 in 1850 and being in contact by mail with her mother Maria Van Siclen until 1868 when Maria died and Fanny was age 31 gave Fanny every opportunity to review Maria’s Bible during the years prior to Maria’s death. END OF PREFACE
………………………………............................................................................................
This is the second in a series of articles intending to instruct Douglas Van Curen on how to analysis affidavits. But first a few comments on his posting # 7681 dtd 10-18-02

It is to be noted that in each past and present Post by Douglas Van Curen he has constantly harangued me about the errors contained in what he describes as “the error filled DAR affidavits” (affidavits written by Violetta and the Eastling deponents). Of specific interest is the literal and inescapable fact that Douglas Van Curen has not been able to provide evidence - be it conclusive or inconclusive - which would prove that the affidavits contain a single error. I attempt to reason with Van Curen, who tampers with and creates fraudulent documents from historical documents, yet is unable to provide a single shred of evidence which supports his allegations of affidavit errors. It is interesting to make special note of the fact that Douglas Van Curen now admits that the affidavits as he says are “half correct”. He didn’t achieve that conclusion from the affidavits. A Van Siclen name appearing unexpectedly on a Brighton grave stone finally convinced Van Curen that Maria Van SICKLEN was in fact Maria Van SICLEN and her father’s name was Cornelius Van SICLEN.

The fact that progress was made via a gravestone is not important, What is important is that the Van SICLEN name and the marriage of Luther C. Eastling to Maria Van SICLEN appearing in the affidavits continues to remain secure and safe from additional tampering by Douglas Van Curen. Van Curen will now have to revise his Van Sicklen genealogy by removing the Eastling lineage connection from the Van Sicklen lineage.

That is a tribute to the honesty and integrity of the 3 deponents. It should now become obvious to even the most casual of observers why Van Curen could discover NO EVIDENCE for a Maria Van SICKLEN marriage to Luther Calvin Eastling.

Think about the nearly unbelievable wasted effort expended by Van Curen when he could have reached the same Van Siclen point if he hadn’t made his rushes to judgment about DAR affidavits.

There is a lesson to be learned - has Douglas Van Curen learned it? NO - now Van Curen is taking the same tack only this time he is attempting to take down Catherine Johnson and not Maria Van SICLEN. Well Douglas Van Curen you will again be eating road kill while the yellow egg yoke rolls down your face………….and the affidavits will be sparkling like stars in the sky. You recall Van Curen I once told you that the affidavits are like a shining star on the point of an Egyptian obelisk? You recall your response ??????

The following comments enclosed in “ “ are copied from the Douglas Van Curen Post # 7681 dtd Oct. 18 2002.

Quoting Van Curen post #7681 - “1. All of the Bible entries are considered "acceptable" by me. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE ORIGINAL SOURCE RECORDS”

Douglas Van Curen has finally admitted that Violetta’s affidavit is an ORIGINAL SOURCE RECORD. Violetta’s affidavit describes herself and includes the transcribed Bible entries, it therefore is an ORIGINAL SOURCE RECORD. Unknown to Douglas Van Curen, it is the sworn oath witnessed and signed by the Notary, including all notary transcribed data which CREATES A SOURCE RECORD from what is otherwise an ordinary document. The transcribed Bible entries would be nothing more than non-certified comments until given the aura of a SOURCE RECORD by the Notaries signature.

After all Douglas Van Curen you are the one who crowed and cackled about how you can lie about anything and have it notarized - all of a sudden now you admit that the Bible entries cease to be notarized lies and become ORIGINAL SOURCE RECORDS? Why? I tell you why, because it had been transcribed by a duly legally authorized Notary - which is precisely the identical reason that the Eastling affidavits are each SOURCE RECORDS. The affidavit as a SOURCE RECORD is legal in any Court.

Even the Reform Church Fishkill NY 1801 Baptismal Record is not admissible evidence in Court until such time as the Baptismal Record is first Certified as a true copy - didn’t know that did you Van Curen - and you will never get Certification of the Reform Church Fishkill NY 1801 Baptismal record except in it‘s original created condition - which to you means no aka‘s will be certified as admissible evidence. At one point in time, Van Curen rejected all DAR discovered affidavits because he said they were NOT ORIGINAL SOURCE RECORDS and contained nothing but errors or perjured testimony.. It would seem that if the Violetta affidavit is an original source record then the Fanny and Ferdinand affidavits are likewise original source records. Simply expressed - if one affidavit is a source record then all affidavits are SOURCE RECORDS.

Quoting Van Curen post #7681 - “.(Eddy would have you believe that 2 Cornelius Van Siclens died in Mar, 1850 as a "coincidence)”.

Yes I would! - There is nothing unusual about two men with identical names dying in the same month of the same year. I have no problem with believing it. People with identical first and last names dying in the same month and year is not at all uncommon. It is happening today - suggest you survey funeral homes around the U.S. and Canada. The specific date of death for Cornelius Van Siclen of affidavit fame was not readable, consequently we don’t know what day in March he died - Because Van Curen desperately wants and needs to prove his allegations that the two Cornelius Van Curen’s are one and the same person, it is to be expected that Van Curen, without evidence, would arbitrarily assign the date March 19 as the day Cornelius Van Siclen of affidavit fame died.

Fact is that the Notary could not read the Bible entry date for March and certified with his notation that the date was unreadable. A reader can view the transcribed Bible entry I posted a day or two ago to Van Curen . The day of death could have been any day from March 1 to March 31. - there is no reason not to believe that both men could have died in the same month and year. There is also no reason not to believe they could have died on the same day, same month and year.

Quoting Douglas Van Curen post $7681 - “THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT MARIA WAS THE DAUGHTER OF CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN AND HANNAH LAWSON. “

It really wasn’t that long ago that Douglas Van Curen was crowing that - “There is absolutely no doubt that Maria was the daughter of Cornelius VAN SICKLEN and Annetje Lawson or whatever aka Van Curen was using at that time.

Names as recorded on the Reformed Church Fishkill NY 1801 Baptismal record -Van Curens alleged documentary proof that Maria of the Reform Church Fishkill NY 1801 Baptismal Record and Maria of affidavit fame are one and the same person.

REFORMED CHURCH FISHKILL NY 1801 BAPTISMAL RECORD
Parents - Cornelius FV SICKLEN & Hannah LOSSING
Child - Maria (NOTE -Parent’s NAMES are NOT SPELLED as Cornelius VAN SICLEN and Hannah LAWSON)

The preceding is an excellent and classic example of Van Curen’s predilection for tampering with and altering historical documents for reason of creating a document that agrees with his preconceived suppositions - A source document which has been tampered with and changed is no longer a source document but has become a fraudulent document.

Douglas Van Curen has no additional documents which support his allegations that the parents names for Van Curen’s Reformed Church Fishkill NY 1801 Baptismal record Maria are Cornelius Van Siclen and Hannah Lawson. Van Curen’s parent suppositions are based solely on his creative imagination supported by wishful thinking.

Fanny Eastling’s testified in her affidavit - a legal source document: “I, Fanny Kelly residing in the City of Minneapolis in said County am the daughter of LUTHER CALVIN EASTLING and MARIE VAN SICLEN or Sickle his second wife. My mother was the daughter of CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN or Van Sicle and CATHERINE JOHNSON his first wife.”

Does Van Curen know of any reason why Fanny would not know her own grandmother Catherine Johnson’s name?
Can Van Curen provide a reason why Fanny would perjure herself merely to create a fictitious grandmothers name when there is nothing to be gained with perjury?

Quoting Van Curen Post # 7681 - “The only Bible entry that is in question at all is the marriage date. It is highly unlikely that Maria was married at age 12. I will continue to challenge that date, based upon her age… I question it as any intelligent person would question a date that makes a bride 12 years old on her wedding day. “

Well Douglas Van Curen for nearly two years you also questioned the Van Siclen name in the affidavits and look where that got you ! Would you say you were intelligent about that? Would Van Curen attempt to explain why Maria Van Siclen or Luther Calvin Eastling would not know the date - July 22 1814 - on which they were married? Isn’t is reasonable to believe that after recording their marriage date both husband and wife would review the entry either at the time the date was entered or shortly after the marriage date had been entered - AND CHANGE THE DATE IF IT HAD NOT BEEN CORRECTLY ENTERED? MARIE HAD 54 YEARS UNTIL HER DEATH DURING WHICH SHE COULD HAVE CORRECTED HER MARRIAGE DATE IF IT HAD BEEN INCORRECTLY WRITTEN.

Van Curen wrote - “I will continue to challenge that date.“ - What type of person would even think about challenging a marriage date written by the newly married couple in their Bible in or about the year 1814. The Notary did not certify that he could not read any date except the March 1850 specific date of death for Cornelius Van Siclen. You can be certain the date was readable and copied correctly by the Notary. Has Van Curen so soon forgotten that it was Van Curen who wrote - “1. All of the Bible entries are considered "acceptable" by me. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE ORIGINAL SOURCE RECORDS”

Maria was, by her own Bible entry birth and marriage dates, 12 years 10 months and 7 days old on the day, July 22 1814, she was married. Has Van Curen ever heard or read about the very popular and well known country music singer Loretta Lynn . A movie was made of her life - Coal Miners Daughter. - Loretta was 13 years plus a few months old when she married. Her husband died from cancer several years ago. Loretta is still singing and making appearances. In fact she made an appearance last year up near Wisconsin Dells, Wis. She continues to be a very talented and attractive lady.

Let us now proceed to - Reading Affidavits 101.….. Pay attention beginners……

……………………………….............................................................................................
AFFIDAVIT OF FANNY KELLY

Copied from handwritten copy of original


State of Minnesota
County of Hennepin

I, Fanny Kelly residing in the City of Minneapolis in said County am the daughter of Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria Van Siclen or Sickle his second wife. My mother was the daughter of Cornelius Van Siclen or Van Sicle and Catherine Johnson his first wife. Mrs. Violetta Voorhees of the City of Minneapolis, Minn. is my daughter by my first husband Frank Irons.

My grandfather Cornelius Van Siclen was a soldier in the war of the American Revolution being enlisted from the State of New York. He died at an extensive old age at Bacauta in the province of Quebec. I saw him in my childhood. I do not remember of ever hearing him speak of his revolutionary services; but I have often heard my mother, his daughter tell of them and such services were as much a matter of family history as any other event in the family life and official documents evidencing such service were kept by some of the older members of the family and what finally became of them I do not know.

(Signed) Fanny Kelly

Subscribed and sworn to before me April 17th 1907

L.R. Larson
Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minn.
My commission expires May 1, 1913
……………………………….....................................................................................................................
Fanny Eastling Kelly’s affidavit is an original source document. It was created under oath, is Notarized and Fanny wrote only about the events of which she had a personal knowledge. Imbedded in Fanny’s affidavit are a few gems which I will point out. Fanny’s affidavit was written and notarized 8 months after Violetta had originally submitted her DAR membership application and had it rejected the first time. Violetta then appears to have requested that Fanny create this affidavit which the DAR required after having found some problems.

Violetta had submitted on her DAR application as her blood line ancestor the name Cornelius Van Sickle. Sometime in either the very late 1800’s or early 1900’s the Van Siclen name began evolving or had evolved into the Van Sickle name. It became obvious after reviewing Violetta’s DAR application that Violetta had never heard the name Van Siclen or had forgotten it existed. You will note in the affidavit that Fanny was also having some difficulty with the Van Siclen name and had a tendency toward using Van Sickle. Not at all unusual during an evolutionary transition of names.

The specific problem the DAR had with Violetta’s application is not known but suspicion points at the DAR not accepting Violetta’s Revolutionary Veterans name - Cornelius Van Sickle - as her blood line ancestor. Why or how the DAR would have discovered that Violetta’s named Veteran, Van Sickle, was not a blood line ancestor of Violetta is not known to myself. I suspect ,without knowing for certain, that the name Van Sickle was the reason for the DAR rejecting her first membership application. The DAR does not appear to be as incompetent , careless or naive as Van Curen and Mr. McCool would like us to believe.

The following was included with an e-mail I received from a correspondent not very long ago. This lady had read about Violetta also being a DAR member. Quoting my correspondent - “ I belong to the Daughters of the American Revolution through my Bancroft lineage. They do not let you into their organization easily! So if someone got into that group, it must have been a true lineage. “ Perhaps that helps to explain Violetta’s initial membership rejection.

Fanny begins by providing her lineage. Fanny specifically mentions the names: Luther Calvin Eastling - Maria Van Siclen or Sickle <second wife of Luther and Fanny’s mother and father> - Cornelius Vam Siclen or Sicle - Catherine Johnson <first wife> - Violetta Voorhees <Fanny‘s daughter> - Frank Irons <first husband of Fanny>

There are a few items which will be obvious to everyone, with the possible exception of Douglas Van Curen. Fanny writes - “My mother was the daughter of Cornelius Van Siclen or Van Sicle and Catherine Johnson his first wife. “ Fanny’s mother was Maria Van Siclen. Maria Van Siclen would certainly know her own mother Catherine Johnson. Catherine Johnson would at various times have talked with Maria about many things, including her marriage to Cornelius Van Siclen and that their marriage (Cornelius and Catherine) was the first marriage for each of them.

You could safely bet your life on the fact that Maria Van Siclen would know without any doubt that her mother Catherine Johnson’s marriage to Cornelius was as Cornelius’s first wife. You can also know with certainty that Maria would also pass that first wife information about her mother Catherine Johnson onto her daughter Fanny. You can also be assured that sometime during the lifetime of Catherine Johnson, Catherine would most likely have discussed with Fanny, even though Fanny was a child, that Fanny’s grandfather and grandmother had never been married to anyone else. There would be no conceivable reason for either Catherine Johnson or Maria Van Siclen not to have told Fanny that Catherine Johnson was Fanny’s grandmother and had never been married before meeting Cornelius Van Siclen. During the creation of Fanny’s affidavit Fanny wrote that simple comment “his first wife” into Fanny’s affidavit. Not required for the DAR but she mentioned it nevertheless. Fanny had no earthly reason to include the name Catherine Johnson in her affidavit if Catherine Johnson had been a fictitious person. If Fanny had created a fictitious Catherine Johnson then there would be no reason for Fanny to have added “his first wife” after Catherine’s name in the affidavit.

The DAR did not require a spouses name on their membership application. Therefore it followed that Fanny would not have had to include the name Catherine Johnson or any spouses name along with Cornelius Van Siclen. No woman’s name had to appear in Fanny’s affidavit.

Ergo - why would Fanny take the chance of being later charged with perjury or Violetta later having her membership revoked if the DAR discovered that a fraudulent Catherine Johnson had been included where no spousal name was required on Violetta’s membership application.

I had become so thoroughly disgusted with Van Curen’s constant haranguing about a fictitious Catherine Johnson that I finally wrote the DAR about spousal name requirements. The DAR replied and stated that even though there is space for a spousal name, the membership application will not be rejected if a spouses name is not on the membership application.

Quoting from Fanny‘s affidavit - “My grandfather Cornelius Van Siclen was a soldier in the war of the American Revolution being enlisted from the State of New York………………”

Therein is all the proof a person with any common sense needs to know that Cornelius Van Siclen served in the Revolutionary war from the State of New York. According to Van Curen, Cornelius Van Siclen of affidavit fame did not serve in the Revolutionary war because Van Curen’s self appointed Brighton Cornelius Van Siclen wasn’t born until 1775. Service in the Rev. War by Cornelius Van Siclen of affidavit fame is additional evidence that the two Cornelius Van Siclen’s are not one and the same person. As we all know Van Curen will vehemently deny what Fanny wrote about her grandfather’s Rev. War service - If Van Curen was to admit that Fanny was not perjuring herself, Van Curen’s house of cards goes down in flames and his Brighton Cornelius Van Siclen is no longer the Cornelius Van Siclen appearing in the affidavits. Consequently, Van Curen’s denial is to be expected.

Fanny wrote - “I do not remember of ever hearing him speak of his revolutionary services; …..” That is not sworn testimony by Fanny that would inspire confidence in a DAR investigator regarding Cornelius’s Rev. War Service. What Fanny wrote was written by a lady dedicated to telling the truth to the very best of her knowledge. Fanny is letting everyone in the DAR and Violetta know that Fanny is not going to lie or even exaggerate about a subject she knows nothing about.

If Fanny had been in a conspiracy with the other deponents to get Violetta DAR membership approval and Fanny was not an honest person - Fanny could easily have written something similar to what follows. It would have made a more forceful impression on any DAR persona reviewing the affidavit - and no one either in or out of the DAR would have any way of knowing Fanny lied:

Fanny hypothetically writing - “I remember as a young child being held on my grandfathers lap while he told me stories about his Revolutionary War experiences. He would sometimes tell me how he once saw George Washington , how bad things were during the winters when food was scarce and warm clothing was hard to get. He told me he once saw a close friend have his head taken off when a cannon ball hit it and my grandfather was sprayed with his friends blood. He said he was present when Cornwallis surrendered . The war was a bad thing for my grandfather and try as hard as he could, he could not forget much of the terrible things he experienced and saw. “

Fanny chose not to lie but described her knowledge of her Grandfather’s war service like this - “but I have often heard my mother, his daughter tell of them and such services were as much a matter of family history as any other event in the family life”. Read how casually Fanny refers to her grandfathers Revolutionary service - “ SUCH SERVICES WERE AS MUCH A MATTER OF FAMILY HISTORY AS ANY OTHER EVENT IN THE FAMILY LIFE.” Those words were never written by a lady who’s intent was to enter into a conspiracy to commit perjury and get a daughter into the DAR.

Quoting Fanny - “official documents evidencing such service were kept by some of the older members of the family and what finally became of them I do not know.”

Fanny knew of the existence of official documents which proved that Cornelius Van Siclen had served in the Revolutionary War. The statement in itself is self evidence proving that Fanny had on one or more occasions actually seen the official documents of Fanny’s grandfather’s Revolutionary war service otherwise it is rather obvious that she would not have referred to them as “official” documents. Fanny would have been 13 or younger during the years she would have looked at those documents.

Quoting Fanny - “He died at an extensive old age at Bacauta in the province of Quebec. I saw him in my childhood.”

Couple things about the two statements. (1) Fanny -”….I saw him in my childhood.” Fanny isn’t stating that she saw her grandfather from a long distance or even a fairly short distance. Fanny is telling the DAR and us that Fanny personally knew, walked, talked, visited, and ate meals with her grandfather Cornelius Van Siclen. It is not at all impossible that at one more times in her 13 years prior to her grandfather dying, that Cornelius and Catherine Johnson Van Siclen may have lived with the Luther Calvin & Maria Van Siclen Eastling family prior to their family leaving for the U.S. in 1848. We certainly have no way of knowing when or for how long of a period or even if often but the two families certainly visited occasionally during their life times. That bit of information is contained within Fanny’s statement - “I saw him in my childhood.”

(2) Fanny - “He died at an extensive old age at Bacauta in the province of Quebec.

Fanny wrote her affidavit in 1907 - she was age 70. I am 72, my wife is 75. Most of our friends are past 70 with some in their 80’s & 90’s. People in our age bracket have a few unique ways of referring to people younger than ourselves - we say of someone younger than ourselves by even only a few years - “he or she is young”. We refer to people about our age as - “he or she is about our age” When people are in their 80”s we frequently refer to them as just plain “old” or “getting old“. When we refer to people in their 90’s and older we frequently refer to them as “getting very old” “he or she is really old” Of course each older individual has their own way of acknowledging people older than themselves. My father was killed by a car one day before his 94th birthday - Referring to my father I would frequently say - he is really getting old - he is getting up in age. Fanny at age 70 describes Cornelius Van Siclen’s age by using the term “He died at an extensive old age…..” That people is certain evidence that Cornelius Van Siclen at the time of his death was somewhere in his 90’s. Knowing that Fanny’s grandfather served in the Revolutionary war, the phrase extensive old age would approximate an age for Cornelius Van Siclen of affidavit fame in the 90’s and probably approximating 95 although it could easily have been as high as 98 or 100. Believe it or not Van Curen many, very many people lived to their high 90’s and even 100 in colonial times and throughout our national history.

Cornelius died in 1850 - the official period for Revolutionary war was between 1775 to 1783. There was 75 years between 1775 and 1850 and 67 years between 1783 and 1850. Cornelius could have enlisted either at the beginning or anytime thereafter until 1783. We don’t know when he joined.

Arbitrarily assigning and age of 20 to Cornelius Van Siclen when he enlisted and assuming he joined in 1775, would have Cornelius Van Siclen born in 1755. Of course we have no information about how old Cornelius was when he enlisted or the year he enlisted - perhaps as young as 15 perhaps as old as 25. If Cornelius was only 15 and enlisted in 1775 he would be born in 1760. If 25 at enlistment in 1775, Cornelius would have been born in 1750. Consequently, Cornelius was probably born sometime around 1750 to 1760. That is just an approximate range which is based on Cornelius joining in 1775.

The preceding is based on two events. (1) Cornelius served in the Revolution (2) Cornelius died in 1850 Both events are not merely believable they are factual as witnessed by Fanny’s affidavit. For neither event did Fanny have a reason to perjure herself.

When I review Ferdinands affidavit in a day or two , by using both Fanny and Ferdinand’s affidavits, I will prove to any rational person with even a smattering of common sense how the affidavits reveal the absolute fact that no conspiracy existed between the deponents. Without a conspiracy to get Violetta DAR membership, none of the deponents had a reason to perjure themselves as conspirators or acting separately to get Violetta DAR membership.


Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

http://genforum.genealogy.com/vansickle/messages/912.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