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 20, 2002 at 10:50:53
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by Douglas Van Curen of 1585

Directed specifically to Douglas Van Curen with information for Mr. McCool Oct 20 2002

Answering 7681 Oct. 19 .2002

Van Curen posted today Oct 19 2002 21:36:41 - “ 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"…………

Van Curen posted today Oct 19 2002 21:36:41 - “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.

Van Curen posted Oct 18 2002 22:26:31 - “The Cornelius Van Siclen exact spelling argument is a long dead issue, since the spelling of the name on Cornelius tombstone in Brighton is an EXACT match to the spelling claimed by Eddy as the correct spelling. I ACCEPT THAT MARIA’S FATHER SPELLED HIS NAME EXACTLY “CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN” AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, AS THAT IS HOW IT WAS SPELLED ON HIS TOMBSTONE.”

Van Curen posted Oct 7 2002 21:04:55 - “So who was Maria Van Siclen Eastling father? CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN, OF COURSE. Spelled exactly that way, on his tombstone……SO EDDY IS HALF RIGHT. MARIA WAS THE DAUGHTER OF CORNELIUS.

Van Curen posted Oct 7 2002 21:04:55 - ”THE LINE IS PROVEN….MARIA VAN SICLEN EASTLING WAS D.O. CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN AND HANNAH LAWSON OF BRIGHTON, ONTARIO.”

Van Curen posted Oct 18 2002 06:35:51 - “Sorry Eddy, but all REAL evidence still proves that Maria was d.o. Cornelius Van Siclen and Hannah Lawson of brighton, Ontario.”

Gusman responding to Oct 19 2002 21:36:41 - So now if - “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". Who then is the father of Maria Van Sicklen and in what year did Maria Van become either a Siclen or a Sicklen? You are dealing with blood lines and not spelling variations?

Van Curen posted Oct 19 2002 21:36:41- “…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.”

Gusman responding to Oct 19 2002 21:36:41 - “My certainty about the spelling of Van Siclen is 100% based on the transcribed Bible entry of the Van Siclen spelling. The affidavits support the accuracy of the Bible entry spelling of Van Siclen. Van Siclen is not my personally created rendition of both Cornelius and Maria’s surname appearing in each of the three transcripts.

About how Fanny spelled Cornelius Van Siclen or Sickle or Sicle - I previously explained that the Van Siclen name had or was in an evolutionary state which is sort of proven by Violetta using only Van Sickle and spelling variations of the same name in her DAR application. It is quite obvious that until Violetta had received the Eastling Bible, Violetta believed that Van Sickle had been her Revolutionary Veteran and didn’t know the name Van Siclen was her blood line ancestral Revolutionary Veteran.

As to Sickle or Sicle appearing in Fanny’s affidavit that merely indicates that Fanny was not exactly certain about whether the Revolutionary Veteran’s name was Van Siclen or Sickle and also that Fanny didn’t know the correct spelling of Sickle when she wrote “Sickle or Sicle”.

What that also proves to a person with a smidgen of common sense is that at the time Fanny wrote her affidavit, Fanny did not have any knowledge about how the VAN SICLEN Veteran’s name was spelled in the Eastling Bible. You need to remember that Fanny had not seen the Eastling Bible for probably years and could not refer to it. Violetta in her affidavit has this to say about the Eastling Bible - “and bible now owned by Ferdinand Easlin Jr. of Bryant S. Dakota, the great grand son of said Luther Calvin Eastling;”
……………………………….....................................................................................................................
The following three “written by” are included here for the singular purpose of illustrating how pervasive the Van Sickle name had become after 1907, even after the genuine Van Siclen name had been revealed by the 1814 Eastling Bible transcript as written by either Maria Van Siclen or Luther Calvin Eastling.

Written by Violetta Voorhees - “Marie Van Sickle, was the daughter of Cornelius Van Sickle Jr. And grand daughter of Cornelius Van Sickle Sr. The famous Van Sickle. Both served in the revolution.”

Written by Violetta Voorhees - “I was four years old when Cornelius Jr. And his wife Katherine died. They made their home with your father's (Cornelius Eastling) father (Luther Calvin Eastling) and mother (Maria Van Sickle Eastling) and lived to be near 100.”

Written by a great grand son, who shall remain nameless, of Cornelius Van Siclen and grand son of Maria Van Siclen in the mid 1930’s, - “I don't have any records on the widow Eastling but do find Record of a Luther Calvin Eastling and wife Maria (Van Siclen) The family came by way of horse drawn covered wagon. Maria Eastling's parents, Cornelius Van Sickle Jr. and his wife Katharine came with them. Both Cornelius and Katharine were over 90 years old when they died. They had been living with Calvin and Maria in the Township of Almond until their death.”
………………………………...............................................................................................
Van Curen posted Oct 19 21:36:41 - “Changing a letter on his name does not make him a different person”

Gusman responding to Oct 19 21:36:41 - “A very true and sensible statement - one of your few - however, you need to add - although a letter change in a name does not make that individual a different person - However, if that person marries and the letter change is carried through to the husband and wife’s children, the wife (along with her husband) create a new bloodline and at that point and because of the wife‘s DNA, the letter change in their surname becomes extremely important. Certainly there have been spelling variations in the Eastling names, other names and the Gusman name. Three known but temporary changes for Eastling - Easling - Easlin - Easterling. However in each instance the names reverted back to Eastling and the children of the next generation continued to bear the Eastling name.

About Gusman - Gusman has been known to change from Gusman to Guzman for one individual and Gushman for a second individual Gushman immigrated to the U.S. as Gusman (father) but on his gravestone is written “Gushman”. The father had four sons and a number of daughters. Three of the sons retained the Gusman name. One of the sons began spelling his name as Guzman and Guzman is on this sons grave stone. The Gusman son who began spelling his name Guzman married and his children of which there were male and female were born as Guzman. The remaining Gusman sons married and their children became Gusman. Consequently, and although each son and wife created new bloodlines in their children be they Gusman or Guzman, the Guzman line has split away from the Gusman line, as did Van Sycklin, Van Siclen, Van Sickle, Van Sicklen etc.

Van Curen posted Oct 19 21:36:41 - “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.

Gusman responding to Oct 19 21:36:41 - “If you believe that spelling was not important 200 years ago then you must also believe that the moon is made of green cheese.” If you believe that spelling is irrelevant attempt to withdraw money from a bank account with the name Douglas Van Buren - Only one letter is changed. If married and you die, your wife will not receive whatever insurance you carried if she applies under any name but Douglas Van Curen, unless she can prove in Court that your name legally changed.” It was that way 200 years ago.

Van Curen posted Oct 19 21:36:41 - “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.”

Gusman responding to Oct 19 21:36:41 - “ Perhaps so perhaps no - In what generation did Van Sicklen change to the Van Siclen buried at Brighton Canada and what does the change do to the Van Siclen blood line which Mr. McCool has in his lineage. The only evidence of a changing surname continuity that is acceptable, not just by myself, but also a Court, would be documents specifically detailing the exact time frame each name changed and showing the previous name and the new name on the same or continuity documents. You can’t and will never be able to provide such evidence. Your evidence is based solely on wishful thinking supplemented by your need to put down the affidavits.

Consider this, each surname you allege was used by one exclusive individual - Sicklen - Siclen for the man and Annetje Lawson - Hannah Lawson - Annetje Lasson. - you failed to include Hannah Lossing are each different and unique surnames. If you are convinced that Lossing, Lasson, Lawson are one and the same person then simply provide me with documented evidence showing the evolution of each surname to the next surname, evidence which will conclusively prove they are indeed the same person.

I would think that you would derive a very unique delight out of putting me down in such a manner - unfortunately for yourself all you can produce are personal imaginary aka’s You can’t produce the required evidence required to support your allegations or you would have used such documents over a year ago to put me down. You would then have crowed and cackled forever. You can no more come up with evidence proving your allegations than you could come up with evidence proving that one Maria Van Sicklen married Luther Calvin Eastling. I have no problem accepting first name changes - first names are not dependant on a fathers first name. Surnames are inherited from a fathers surname.

What you ignore is that for a woman named Lossing to become Lasson she first needs a father Lasson then for the Lasson woman to become Lawson she needs a father Lawson, unless of course the woman in question is legally changing her surnames - there was such a thing in colonial times as a “legal” name change. If that be the case, the document trail should be relatively easy for an old hand at research like yourself.

Douglas Van Curen do not confuse aliases with aka’s. There is a subtle difference. Just last week a correspondent discovered a newspaper article from 1896. The article reported that a woman in the Eastling genealogy had 4 different aliases not including her real name. Each of the aliases used a different and unique surname.

Well,as I have discovered early on the Lawson, Lasson and Lossing names are bonifide names originating a few centuries earlier, in one case as early as the 1500’s. We also know from the Reform Church baptismal record that Hannah Lossing had a relative named Mathew P. Lossing appearing on the same page that Hannah Lossing appeared. Now explain how Hannah Lossing could become Hannah Lawson and Annetje Lasson while her relative no doubt remained Mathew Lossing.

Van Curen you are backing water and blowing smoke and doing so because of your embarrassing humiliation at discovering from another person that there was a Cemetery stone containing the name Van Siclen, and spelled identical to the spelling in the affidavits.

Recall how you on many occasions told me how you had researched the millions of names in Canada and had not found a buried Van Siclen in Canada. It must be your most embarrassing and humiliating moment ever to have been notified by someone else that a Cemetery stone with the Van Siclen name had been found in a manner of speaking “right in your own backyard”. Then isn’t that the way the self proclaimed experts about anything are always brought down.

I am reminded of the Piltdown man found in Sussex, England who’s skull was discovered in the 20the century. All of the worlds leading paleontology experts at that time pronounced the skull a genuine transitional ape to humanoid skull. The find and pictures of skull went into college evolutionary textbooks as a transitional ape to humanoid form. I think the fraud was perpetrated in either the 20’s or early 30’s. It remained in the text books until several years ago, when a son of one of the perpetrators of the fraud admitted that his father and another paleontologist (both had died) had tampered with an apes skull, thereby creating their impression of a transitional skull. When the perpetrators discovered that the foremost paleontology experts in the world pronounced the skull a genuine transitional form they decided, because of the ridicule and embarrassment which would come down on the “experts”, that they would not reveal their fraudulent creation of a transitional skull until after those experts had all died.

The experts pronounced the skull genuine and were wrong - you Van Curen, a self proclaimed expert, pronounced the affidavits fraudulent because they are filled with errors. What more can I say about your display of “expertise”.

I will not again in this post discuss Fanny’s inclusion of Catherine Johnson into Fanny’s affidavit. I believe children and grandchildren know the names of their parents and grandparents.

However I will repeat this. Violetta, having an ongoing relationship with the DAR chapter she would later join, would have known that A NON-BLOOD LINE SPOUSAL NAME WAS NOT REQUIRED ON A DAR MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION prior to Violetta completing and submitting her application.

Violetta chose to enter the name Catherine Johnson, which she early on in her childhood had probably learned from her mother Fanny long before the DAR ever came up. Not only would Violetta from her association with other DAR members have known that a spouses name for a Veteran was not required, Violetta would have also known from her mother Fanny the name of Fanny’s grandmother. Should it be that Violetta did not know her great grandmothers name, very conceivable, it would have been a simple matter to get it from Violetta’s mother Fanny. Violetta knowing that the name wasn’t needed and not knowing the spouses name, would more than likely not have gone to the trouble of asking her mother fanny. Violetta would most likely have left the spouses box empty.

Now explain why you believe that Violetta would jeopardize her membership or risk a future membership termination by creating what you define as a fictitious spousal name, Catherine Johnson, on an application which did not require a spouses name? Violetta certainly was not an ignorant or foolish woman - knowing that a spouses name was not a membership requirement, Violetta would never have created a fictitious spouses name where a name was not required. Violetta had everything to loose by inserting a fraudulent spouses name for Cornelius Van Siclen and absolutely nothing to gain by leaving the spouse box empty.

Do yourself a huge favor Douglas Van Curen - take a shower before the egg yolk dries on your face and body and the road kill you have to eat is eaten by the other vultures.

Your faux pas with Violetta, Catherine Johnson, first wife, Maria Van Siclen, Cornelius Van Siclen and the affidavits could be never ending if you don’t soon show more common sense than you have demonstrated to date.

Van Curen posted Oct 19 21:36:41 - “ 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.”

Gusman responding to Oct 19 21:36:41 - “ Wrong Douglas Van Curen - once again you display an amazing lack of knowledge when it comes to comprehending the nature and legal status of an affidavit. You can whine, cry, argue, ridicule use sarcasm, be nasty, obnoxious and totally disagreeable (all of the character traits which you have displayed and continue to do) - but you cannot alter the legal status and nature of an affidavit. You will save yourself much grief in future years if you study the nature of affidavits.

The names of Maria’s parents do not appear in Violetta’s affidavit, consequently for Maria’s parents, Violetta’s affidavit is not a source record and does not purport to be so.

As to birth dates, death dates, etc. The fact that those items appear in the Bible transcription and the Bible transcripts are contained within Violetta’s transcript does in itself create a legal source document for the transcript. Wake up Van Curen - smell the coffee!

Here is the complete affidavit:

State of Minnesota
County of Hennepin

Violetta Voorhees being first duly sworn deposes and says that she is now a resident of the City of Minneapolis in said county, that she was born in Hobart, Ind. January 1st 1855, that her parents were Frank Irons and Fanny his wife, maiden name Fanny Easlin as she spelled her name, that her father spelled his name Easling: that applicant now has in her possession the family bible of Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria his wife whose maiden name was Maria Van Sicklin and bible now owned by Ferdinand Easlin Jr. of Bryant S. Dakota, the great grand son of said Luther Calvin Eastling; that the first entry in the family records of said bible is as follows:

“Luther C. Eastling born May 30th 1791” and “Maria Eastling was born Sept 15th 1801”, that subsequent entries among many others in said family bible are the following “Luther & Maria Van Siclin Eastling was married July 22nd 1814”, Fanny Hill Eastling born November the 20th 1837”, Francis Irons was married to Fanny Eastling April the 22 1854 in her 17 year”, “father Van Siclen died March the ?? in 1850”, that the entry of the birth of “Fanny Hill Eastling“ is the tenth-entry of births of children of Luther and Maria Eastling, that the day of the month in the record of the death of “father Van Siclen” is too indistinct to read. That the mother of applicant is the Fanny Hill Eastling whose birth and marriage are recorded in said bible as above set forth.

(Signed) Violetta Voorhees

Subscribed and sworn & before me April 6 1907
L.R. Larson
Notary Public

(Stamped) Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minn.
My commission expires May 1, 1913

I, L.R. Larson do hereby certify that I signed the ???? to the foregoing affidavit of Violetta Voorhees, that said affidavit is in my handwriting and that in making said affidavit I copied the entries therein set forth from the bible referred to in said affidavit and the copies so made by me are all correct and true.

L.R. Larson

Van Curen posted Oct 19 2002 21:36:41- “…As usual, your entire case rests on a 20th centure DAR application and includes no supporting records from the time when Maria and her parents were alive. ….”

Gusman responding to Oct 19 21:36:41 - “ No part of my case/position rests on the DAR application. With the exception of the name of Catherine Johnson, Violetta, approval signatures and Notary signature, my entire position rests on three sworn and Notarized affidavits. No additional supporting documents have been discovered and may not exist. The three affidavits currently held at DAR headquarters are “real and genuine” original source records which after Certification as original documents become admissible evidence in Court.

You on the other hand you likewise currently have no source documents of any type that would be admissible in Court. Every document you allege to support your position would have to first be Certified/Notarized as an original document before becoming admissible in Court. Original records to be Certified must first be proven to be original and contain no alterations of any type whatsoever before Certification as an original document will be granted. Considered singly your original documents prove nothing until certified as original. - considered collectively they prove nothing until certified as original.

You base your entire position on a single 1801 Baptismal record. Taken by itself without the addition of aka names, the Baptismal record is probably Certifiable but proves only that a Maria Van Siclen was born Sept 15 to a Cornelius FV Sicklen and Hannah Lossing. The affidavits testify that Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson were the parents of one Maria Van Siclen married to Luther Calvin Eastling. The original affidavits currently held by the DAR, once Certified as original become admissible evidence in Court. Your 1801 Baptismal Record once it is Certified will also become admissible evidence in Court. However, should you in any manner alter the original Baptismal Record or any original record such as by attempting to add aka’s, the Baptismal Record cannot be Certified as an original source record. At that instant your position is dead.

Until that time you can huff and puff all you please - you cannot change the testimony contained in the affidavits. Ya all have a nice day now……….


Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

http://genforum.genealogy.com/vansickle/messages/914.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