Starting Sept. 30, 2014, Genealogy.com will be making a big change. GenForum message boards, Family Tree Maker homepages, and the most popular articles will be preserved in a read-only format, while several other features will no longer be available, including member subscriptions and the Shop.
 
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: Douglas Van Curen (ID *****7681) Date: October 19, 2002 at 21:36:41
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by Ed Gusman of 1585

Sorry Eddy...There is nothing for me to be embarrassed about. The "Van Siclen" spelling on the gravestone in Brighton is only significant to poke fun at your idiotic contention that all records pertaining to Maria's father be spelled exactly "Van Siclen". You just shot that down yourself with your statement that the affadavits are 100% correct. Better go read them again. Fanny's affadavit says, and I quote EXACTLY:

"....Maria Van Siclen or Sickle his second wife. My mother was the daughter of Cornelius Van Siclen or Van Sicle.."

If her affadavit is 100% correct, as you maintain...then she was not certain as to how it should be spelled, which means neither are you. You are the one that is trying to convince people to ignore all other spellings of the name, because you know that the only way to sell your fantasy is to keep people away from real records. Again, the fact that Cornelius of Brighton was buried under the Van Siclen spelling simply provided a way to poke fun at your "exact spelling" nonsense, nothing more. There are also records in Brighton...census, land, tax, etc...that list him as "Cornelius Van Sicklin", and "Cornelius Van Sicklen". Changing a letter on his name does not make him a different person, as Eddy would have us all believe. Spelling was not important 200 years ago, and spelling variations in records occurred commonly in all families of the time...as all credible researchers realize. The reality is that even if the surname on Cornelius' tombstone would have been spelled other than "Van Siclen" exactly, he still would be Maria's father. It was the records of the day that proved he was her father....spelling is irrelevant.

Cornelius Van Sicklen and Annetje Lawson are Cornelius Van Siclen and Hannah Lawson of Brighton. Hannah Lawson and Annetje Lasson are the same person. Cornelius Van Sicklen of Fishkill, Cornelius Van Sicklin of Brighton, and Cornelius Van Siclen of Brighton are all the same person. I don't have to do anything about them, because they are the one couple, regardless of how you spell their names. Again, records prove who they are. They left a very clear trail from Fishkill to Brighton. So spelling is, again, irrelevant.

The additional letters you have using the name Catharine Johnson were written after the DAR affadavits. Those letters simply restate the Violet Voorhees error. Once she put the name Catharine Johnson down on paper, the entire family became sold on the name. They all had no reason to doubt her discovery, so they accepted it as fact, and passed it around. Doesn't change the fact that the claim was false. There is no question the name "Catharine Johnson" started with Violet's research error. That name is not found on any record, document or family correspondence dated prior to Violet's 1906 DAR application. Sorry, Eddy...you lose. Everyone knows where the name came from, and that she was not Maria's mother. Fantasy over.

Violetta's Affadavit is not an original source document with respect to Maria's parents, birth dates, death dates, etc. The bible entries are. As the entries are certified, they are acceptable, noting that errors are possible because of the "noted" readability problem. Note too, that Violetta's affadavit contains alternate spellings of the surname, as well...including "Van Sicklin", and "Van Siclin". The affadavits you hold so dear are proof positive that your jammering about the "Van Siclen" exact spelling is nothing more than your own ignorance put on display. There is nothing in any of the DAR documents that would establish "Van Siclen" as "THE" spelling, and "only" correct spelling of the name. That nonsense exists only in Eddy's mind.

As usual, your entire case rests on a 20th century DAR application, and includes no supporting records from the time when Maria and her parents were alive. My case rests entirely on original source documents from the time in question and when considered collectively do prove the DAR statements contain errors. Records and source documents is what research is all about. "REAL" genealogists prove a family line with "REAL" records, not with family folklore and flawed DAR applications. Do us all a favor - drop the fantasy and do some actual research. The world is full of records just waiting for you. And in those records lie the truth...and the end of the Catharine Johnson myth.


Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

http://genforum.genealogy.com/vansickle/messages/913.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