Starting Sept. 5, 2014, 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: Ed Gusman (ID *****7908) Date: October 26, 2002 at 14:58:48
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by Douglas Van Curen of 1583

Replying to Douglas Van Curen’s Post Oct 25 2002 18:39:54 with information to Mr. McCool

Probably your most responsible dialog to date. Reading it was rather refreshing. I note and will comment about what you wrote. I don’t have a problem with your not agreeing with me only the dialog you have been using to illustrate you disagreement.

Van Curen writes Oct 25 2002 18:39:54 - “Interesting. Eddy brings up, out of nowhere, an 1849 letter which supposedly proves his case. Then he says he won't post it, even if he has access to it....something about how I might say something about them. In short, there is no such letter.”

Van Curen has vandalized the affidavits, a Bible entry transcript, fictionalized a Harbor entry story thought to be true by Violetta, and rejected personal testimony by myself. There is simply no reason or justification for me to continue to expend effort and waste time with my submission of additional documents, which prove the already known validity of the affidavits.

It is a forgone conclusion that if I had the omnipotent power to resurrect Catherine Johnson and Cornelius Van Siclen of affidavit fame and they would testify in person to Douglas Van Curen, Douglas Van Curen would reject their testimony if they couldn’t produce documents, letters and whatever Douglas Van Curen alleges they should be able to produce which would prove that they had been born!.

Now we are faced with a paradox.

In the past Van Curen has at different times posted that he would accept the affidavits if I could provide additional documentation which would corroborate the affidavits. At one point Van Curen emphasized that I need submit a single letter wherein Catherine Johnson was mentioned. I have repeatedly stated that all I had was the affidavits and Bible transcript.

So what happened - I finally agree to reveal what has been to me personal and private stories told to me in my childhood by my grandfather. Van Curen’s response Oct 24 2002 20:49:14 - “You say your grandfather knew of Cornelius service and the name Catharine Johnson prior to 1907. I say you are wrong.”

Again Van Curen demonstrates an omniscience that he does not posses.

My response to Van Curen is: where then did my grandfather hear the stories he told me about Cornelius Van Siclen being a Revolutionary Veteran. From Violett’s DAR application or Violetta? - not even likely. More than likely the only people knowing that Violetta had applied for DAR membership were in all probability Violetta, her family and Fanny and Ferdinand.

Van Curen then changes his tactic and now insists - Van Curen Oct 24 2002 20:49:1 - “Provide a letter written by your grandfather sometime in the 1800s…before Violets’ error…which contains a reference to the name Catharine Johnson. I know you can’t, because if you had any family evidence of that name dated prior to 1900 you would have been waving it around like a flag years ago.”

I would most certainly have been flag waving such a letter. Van Curen knows I can’t produce such a letter from my own or my grandparents records. I have told him enough times that I have no such documents. Ergo Van Curen feels safe in demanding a document he knows I don’t have.

What Van Curen neglected to take into consideration is that perhaps some distant relative of mine - descendant of one of the thirty five grandchildren - may have in their possession a letter or even letters which contain the name Catherine Johnson and or Cornelius Van Siclen.

I have been told by one distant cousin that she had an Aunt (died years ago) who was heavily into genealogy. The cousin, newly found a bit over a year ago, also told me that she recalled reading a journal written by probably Maria Van Siclen recording their trip from Canada to Indiana. This cousin also told me that she recalled seeing a tintype photo of a lady who’s name she didn’t know, but because the tintype was with Eastling papers, could have been either Mari or Catherine herself. The fact that it was tintype and not a photo signifies an age prior to the Civil War and probably near 1800 or thereabout.

Van Curen I tell you this not because I or the distant cousin knows what the journal contains (the cousin has not been able to find the journal and suspects they it may be in the possession of another relative) or the name of the lady in the tintype. I tell you to illustrate that there is indeed Eastling documentation out there. Finding it is the difficulty. There are very many more people NOT interested in genealogy than are interested. The ever present danger is that historical records are being discarded even today by the disinterested, along with the fact that so many people do not want to be bothered, don’t answer mail or e-mail and even tell a caller not to bother them. I have experienced much of that type of response.

In my post Oct 25 2002 13:32:05 I comment - “If I were to place on this forum a typed copy of a letter written in 1849 to Maria Van Siclen after the family moved to Hobart, Lake County, Indiana wherein the health of Cornelius Van Siclen is discussed and the name Catharine Johnson appears - how would you react to the letter……. Although I do not have the letter, I have been told there is a person who is believed to own the letter…...I haven‘t read it, having only recently been notified that there is such a letter.”

Van Curen’s reaction Oct 26 2002 18:39:54 - “ Interesting. Eddy brings up, out of nowhere, an 1849 letter which supposedly proves his case. Then he says he won’t post it, even if he has access to it…. Something about how I might say something about them. In short, THERE IS NO SUCH LETTER.……”

Van Curen’s omniscience continues unabated!.

“Out of nowhere” pray tell us Van Curen, if the 1849 letter has never been referred to in the past where would a reference to the letter come from except “out of nowhere”. Without Van Curen knowing if I can even find the owner of the letter or if the letter can be found by the owner in question, Van Curen DETERMINES AND ALLEGES THAT “THERE IS NO SUCH LETTER” EVEN BEFORE I HAVE DETERMINED WHO MIGHT HAVE SUCH A LETTER. Van Curen has already rationalized, and alleged that the letter doesn’t exist,

Van Curen having already determined with his unique omniscience that - “THERE IS NO SUCH LETTER“ - creates a situation where it would be an exercise in futility for me to search for the individual who is believed to own the letter.It is patently obvious that Van Curen has his rejection put down in place even before the letter may or could be found. I have no need to prove anything to Van Curen. Consequently, Van Curen would do himself a favor should he ever again post to this forum anything about the Eastling affidavits. Never again refer to my not being able to produce documents about Eastling’s.

Another paradox? Van Curen challenges me to produce a single letter written prior to 1906 and containing the name Catherine Johnson. Van Curen then immediately rejects the letter before I have even found the 1849 letter for which I have a lead. What an immature child I have been dealing with!

If the truth were known, Douglas Van Curen is scared out of mind that an Eastling descendent may be holding a letter written prior to 1906 and containing the name of Catherine Johnson

I continue replying to his allegations only because of my interest in refuting every allegation Van Curen has made and continues to make - hoping thereby to prevent anyone interested in the Eastling lineage who visits this forum from being exploited by Van Curen’s fraudulent connection of the Eastling lineage to the Van Sicklen lineage.

In actual fact Van Curen‘s previous connection between Eastling and Van Sicklen lineages has actually been proven wrong by Van Curen‘s own admission that it was Maria Van SICLEN who married Luther Calvin Eastling and not one Maria Van SICKLEN.

What I find so very interesting is that in all of those two more or less years, Van Curen cannot point to a single allegation made by himself pertaining to people of Eastling descent, beginning with the marriage of Cornelius and Maria Van Siclen which has been correct or Van Curen has been able to prove.

On the other hand, I can point to his error when Van Curen insisted for well over a year and a half that the Van Siclen name was incorrectly spelled in the affidavits and Bible transcripts. An error about the spelling of Van Siclen that he finally admitted to when he posted the following statements on this forum.

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 refers to the wrong couple. Van Curen selects Cornelius born in 1775 and married to Hannah Lawson. Van Curen is correct about the affidavit Maria Van Siclen being the daughter of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen who was a Revolutionary Soldier. Van Curen’s difficulty is that he is off by one generation of Van Siclen’s

Doesn’t it strike a casual reader as odd how a researcher can allege that a name in the affidavits is spelled wrong then finally admit the name is correctly spelled and the lady is married with the name she recorded in her Bible entry then that same researcher will reject a second name and events contained within the same affidavits?

I wrote Oct 24 2002 13:32:05
“Age range for 7 of Maria’s children for years 1848-1868: Hiram from 23-43; Harford 23-43; Ferdinand 20-40; Cornelia 17-37; Cornelius 17-37; Cynthia 14-34; Fanny 11-31.”

Obviously you didn’t want to see or know the age range of Catharine’s grandchildren before 1906/1907. Their age ranges over 20 years demonstrates that each child of Maria was at a mature adult age decades prior to 1906-1907. As adults what is more natural than for them to want to know their grandparents names, if they did not already know the name of their grandparents. Ergo they ask their mother Maria, assuming that she has not early on told them.

Why do I have to explain those things to you as if you were an immature child.

I presented you with a fact that you can’t disprove or challenge - the adult ages of the grandchildren of Catherine over a twenty year period. In your response Oct. 24 2002 20:49:14 you choose to ignore their adult ages - responding as if only their names were written and describing the names as if they were "gibberish", apparently hoping thereby to divert attention away from their adult ages.

(I neglected to include Van Curen’s exact comment, which I today include - Van Curen Oct 24 2002 20:49:14 - “The remainder of your “dialog” is pure gibberish. You seem to think that naming children who were born in the 1800’s somehow proves that the name Catharine Johnson was known prior to 1907”)

You did so because you know, as well as I do, that the age ranges are in themselves self-evident proof that those adults were mature enough to inquire about, know and remember the names of their grandparents decades before 1906/1907. At least you have discovered a new adjective in "gibberish".”

Having just written about the adult ages of Catherine and Maria’s descendents I now illustrate using your own words one of the many ways in which adults discover the names of grandparents and great grandparents and great great parents.

Van Curen Oct 23 2002 21:52:14 - “ 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.”

So where is the problem? - you learned the name of your grandmother. It made no difference that you learned it after she died, you did learn it.

That is what this dialog is about - the children of Maria learned the name of their grandparents from their mother. Those children in turn passed the information onto their children and so on eventually to Leon Eastling who told another 9-13 year old boy about Cornelius and Catherine Van Siclen. Absolutely no difference between the manner in which you learned your grandmothers given name and how any one or more or perhaps even all 45 descendents of Catherine Johnson and Cornelius could have learned their ancestors given names well before 1906.

Point you overlooked is that YOU DID EVENTUALLY LEARN YOUR GRANDMOTHER’S NAME just as each descendent of Catherine Johnson eventually learned Catherine and her husband’s name well before 1906, be it while they were adults, teens or childhood age, In your case as in the descendants, it made no difference that you learned it after the death of your grandmother or before, you did learn it as they learned Catharine’s name long before 1906 and then remembered the name.

If you could hear about, learn and remember your grandmother’s name why then do you find it so impossible to believe that anyone or all of the 45 descendants of Maria Van Siclen may have learned Catherine Johnson’s name from their mother and or the grandchildren of Maria either in childhood, teens or their adult years decades before 1906.

Those who may have been following these arguments may have noted that after Van Curen received the preceding posted by myself Oct 24 13:32:05, Van Curen in his posting Oct. 25, 2002 18:39:54, makes no reference to the adult ages of Maria’s grandchildren or his previous allegations that Maria’s grandchildren and their 35 descendents did not know the name of Catherine Johnson.

Van Curen knowing his allegation has been flamed (the allegation that adults who are grandchildren of Maria would not have known prior to 1906 the name of their grandmother Catherine Johnson) has suddenly dropped that allegation like it was a white hot poker. Although Van Cure may have a problem, readers will have no problem recognizing that adults will make inquiries about their grandparents and most and perhaps all of the adults so inquiring will carry the knowledge of their grandparents and their names to their grave.

Perhaps you wish to continue your allegations that my grandfather born in 1875 could not learn from his adult father, Cornelius Eastling and his wife the names of Maria and Cornelius including Cornelius’s Revolutionary service, or that Cornelius Eastling could not have learned from his mother Maria the names of his grandparents Cornelius and Catherine Johnson Van Siclen.

I have a strong suspicion that after reviewing the age range for the adults which I presented, you now recognize the preposterous absurdity of your attempting to continue alleging that none of the descendents of Catherine Johnson or Maria Van Siclen knew the name Catherine Johnson prior to 1906.

In closing I TELL DOUGLAS VAN CUREN THAT FOR MYSELF THE AFFIDAVITS ARE ENOUGH. Consequently, I never had the need or even desire to inquire of living relatives if they had letters, etc. which would confirm what I already knew from the affidavits TO BE TRUE.

If Van Curen has conclusive evidence which will support his allegations, evidence that will prove the affidavits contain as little as a single error, then Van Curen should present that evidence on this forum or directly to myself

For two years now all Van Curen has done is allege, allege and more allegations that the affidavits contain errors. The fact that Van Curen, searching as hard as he did, could not find a trace of evidence supporting his allegation that one Maria Van SICKLEN married Luther Calvin Eastling and was finally forced to admit that the affidavits were correct when they stated it was Marie Van SICLEN who married Luther Calvin Eastling. That should have been a lesson to Van Curen that his research methods are seriously flawed as they apply to the Eastling lineage ancestry and that the Eastling affidavits are correct in their complete testimony because the deponents were testifying about people and events which they knew and lived through.

Until Van Curen is able to provide evidence that the affidavits or my personal testimony about Cornelius and Catherine is wrong for whatever reason, please do not respond again to this posting.

We are at an impasse. I will never relinquish my position about the validity of the affidavits. You will never be able to discover a particle of evidence the affidavits are wrong in any part.

You have lost the argument about the Eastling affidavits and have been flamed by someone about the spelling of Van Siclen in the affidavits. The adult ages prior to 1906 of 45 descendants of Cornelius and Catherine Johnson Van Siclen destroy every vestige of your allegations that all or many of those descendents did not carry Cornelius and his wife Catherine into the 20th century. You will never be able to prove any of your allegations.

When you eventually understand the significance of adult ages and the affidavit truths, you will then understand why Cornelius Van Sickle and Katherine Johnson appear in the 1930’s letter excerpt which I included in a post a few posts earlier.

Give it up Van Curen - it is over. .

Please do not respond to this. I have no interest or desire an corresponding with you.

Notify Administrator about this message?

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message
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