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: Douglas Van Curen (ID *****7681) Date: October 23, 2002 at 21:52:14
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by Ed Gusman of 1585

You say you have provided the proof necessary for the existence of Catharine Johnson and Cornelius' Revolutionary War Service. I must have missed that part, because you have never provided proof of anything, as yet. Family folklore does not constitute proof of anything, since we are all very much aware of how even simple tales become distorted in "word-of-mouth" passed along tales. What began as Cornelius talking about his father's service somehow got mixed up and Cornelius himself got credit for something he didn't do. The primary reason many Americans moved to Canada in the early 1800s was to take advantage of the Crown Bounty land offer, which gave land to the sons of former Revolutionary soldiers. Cornelius' father did serve...Cornelius did not. Eddy can't even find a single record referring to "HIS" fictitious Cornelius/Catharine Johnson in any capacity...not census, tax, church, etc...nothing, so it isn't surprising that he can't find a war record for him.

I am lacking in vital knowledge? Coming from someone who doesn't have a clue even where to start looking for "vital" anything, The statement is indeed humorous. There are a great many very detailed records in existence for the Revolutionary War, including pension records and muster rolls. Spend a little time doing some actual research and you would know that, already. If he served, there would be some record of it. There were, in fact, several Corneliuses who did serve, but all have been accounted for. Of course, you would exclude all of them, anyway...due to your "exact spelling" nonsense. I still laugh when I think of the absurdity of that. That is your single biggest failing...since those of us who are dedicated to serious research know that spelling was NOT a primary focus in early records keeeping.

And as far as "everyone knows their grandmother's name"...I knew that people called my grandmother Pearl, but I did not know until the day we buried her that her given name was Maude. And that scenario is far more common than Eddy would ever admit. Yes, it is very possible that Maria's children did not know their grandmother's real first name, and even more likely that they didn't know her maiden name. Assuming that they "HAD" to know it, just because...that's a fool's mistake. And it would be simple for you to prove otherwise...simply provide us with one document of any kind...even a family letter...dated before Maria's death, specifically naming Catharine Johnson or referring to Cornelius' War record. That's all...just one piece of paper that would show that this piece of fiction didn't begin with Violet's research error. If you can't provide any evidence of your mythical Catharine Johnson's existence, you should end the dialog. Why waste our time with a constant barage of Nothing.



Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

http://genforum.genealogy.com/vansickle/messages/919.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