Big changes have come to — 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: November 20, 2002 at 19:08:05
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by Richard Alan McCool of 1585

I will not include Catherine Boerum into the Eastling lineage. My next question to you was going to ask if you knew where they were buried. You preempted the question. The burial location makes it conclusive that she and her husband is not the Cornelius in the Eastling affidavits.

You write - "I have also said to you that your ancestor Cornelius Van Siclen was the brother of my Johannes Van Siclen. That is, he is the uncle (and namesake) of Cornelius Van Siclen, husband of Catherine Boerum."

I hope that this is plain enough. Your Cornelius Van Sic[k]len married first, Femmetie (Phoebe) Vanderveer, then Catherine Johnson."

It is most certainly NOT "PLAIN ENOUGH". Are you saying that Cornelius Van Siclen appearing in the Eastling affidavits is the brother of the Johannes Van Siclen married to Gertrude Lott? Or is there another Johannes Van Siclen that I have overlooked?

What is plain enough is this, quoting yourself - "...Your Cornelius Van Sic[k]len married first, Femmetie (Phoebe) Vanderveer, then Catherine Johnson."

Not true! The Eastling affidavits clearly state that the first wife of Cornelius Van Siclen was Catherine Johnson. The use of "first wife" in Fanny's affidavit indicates that Cornelius married a second time after the death of Catherine Johnson. I believe the affidavits are unequivocally correct in every statement contained therein - no exceptions.

How on this little ol green earth did you come to a conclusion that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen is supposed to be Cornelius Van Sicklen/Sickelen, which he would have to be, if as you tell me he married a first wife Femmetje Vandeveer and then a second wife Catherine Johnson.

There is no data in the DAR application or Eastling lineage documentation that even implies that Cornelius Van Siclen could have been connected with the Van Sicklen lineage.

If affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen had been a brother of Johannes Van Sicklen (born 1722) then the progenitor of each was Ferdinand Van Sickelen. Affidavit Cornelius would have been named Cornelius Van Sicklen/Sickelen and Maria would have been Maria Van Sicklen/Sickelen. Such is not the case. Both affidavits Cornelius and affidavit Maria are named Van Siclen in Maria's Bible entry and confirmed 93 years later by the affidavit's deponents.

I have never understood why Van Curen researched the Van Sicklen lineage trying to find evidence of any kind that would confirm or imply a marriage between a Maria Van Sicklen and Luther C. Eastling. He found nothing because the affidavit Maria's name was Van Siclen and there was no such a marriage - the marriage was between Maria Van Siclen and Luther C. Eastling.

Now you are cloning Van Curen's research by attempting to connect the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen with the Cornelius Van Sicklen married to Femmetje Vandeveer and Catherine Johnson. As gently as I can put it - the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen is not the same Cornelius Van Sicklen that you have born in 1726 and dying before 1806

Even Van Curen was perceptive enough to recognize that simple fact well over a year ago.

Consider this - In 1850 the year the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen died, Cornelius Van Sicklen born in 1726 would have been 124 years old.

You will now tell me that Maria Van Siclen didn't know the year that her father Cornelius Van Siclen died when she wrote "father Van Siclen died March ?? 1850.

At this point the failure of Van Curen and you to collaborate on your affidavit hypothesis becomes downright hilarious.

You state (referring to Cornelius Van Siclen in the affidavits) - It should not surprise you that Fanny & Co. should remember the name Catherine Johnson as the wife of Cornelius. However, THIS CORNELIUS WAS BORN 24 JANUARY 1726 AND DIED BEFORE 25 FEBRUARY 1806 (when his will was proved). He married, by New York license dated 11 June 1771, Catherine Johnson."

You appear to be saying that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen was born 1726 and died in 1806?

Van Curen has stated that the Van Siclen buried in the Brighton Cemetery is the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen was born in 1775 and died in 1850.


You say - "that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen married a second wife Catherine Johnson in June 1771." You ignore the fact that the man who married Catherine Johnson in June 1771 was one Cornelius Van Sickelen or Van Sicklen, whichever.

Van Curen says that the affidavit Catherine Johnson is a fraudulent name created by a conspiracy of Violetta, Fanny & Ferdinand. Van Curen says that the wife of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen buried in the Brighton Cemetery was Annetje/Hannah Lawson.


You say - "you seem oblivious to whatever is presented to you that does not conform with your ideas."

I say the testimony appearing in the affidavits are neither my ideas or my testimony. I reject anything that conflicts with the affidavit testimony, unless irrefutable evidence is presented which proves the affidavits contain errors.

Because the both of you are so convinced that the affidavits contain errors, either all or in part, it should be easy for you and Van Curen to provide documented evidence proving the errors you allege to exist in the affidavits actually do exist. As the cliche goes - either put up or shut up! Both of you have discovered that while it is easy to vilify the affidavits it is quite another thing providing the evidence required proving your allegations.

When the both of you, as self proclaimed genealogy research experts, reach a resolution about the year, 1726 or 1775 that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen was born and the year, before 1806 or 1850 that he died, you let me know.

One last item

You wrote - "It bears repeating that the sole purpose of Violetta Voorhees' making her affidavit and having her mother and uncle make their affidavits, and having the notary notarize the transcript of the family bible, was so that Violetta could join the DAR. Her membership was denied by the national office.

Have you asked yourself why?

Frankly, I think that in her fervor to join the DAR, Violetta slipped a gear and lost a generation. This is not uncommon, Ed. Her elders likewise, somehow, lost track. Maybe they just acquiesced, maybe they just weren't sure and were glad to accept Violetta's rendition. But, the DAR didn't. And for good reason. Doug has explained that to you."

My answer to you. NO! - I haven't asked myself why Violetta wanted to join the DAR. I don't care WHY! Was it a crime for Violetta to want to become a member of the DAR? What difference should that make to either of us? And of course Violetta had to comply with the DAR membership requirements before she would be admitted. SO WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?

You wrote - " Her elders likewise, somehow, lost track. Maybe they just acquiesced, maybe they just weren't sure and were glad to accept Violetta's rendition. But, the DAR didn't. And for good reason. Doug has explained that to you."

You appear to enjoy telling the Internet world your version of what people long dead thought and what their motivations were.

You allege that " Her elders likewise, somehow, lost track."

What did her elders loose track of? What did they acquiesce about? What is it they weren't sure about? What rendition of Violetta would they have been glad to accept? What is the good reason that the DAR wouldn't accept whatever it may be that you believe the DAR would not accept? What has Doug explained to me?

Your comments about the elders are just as convoluted as your lack of competent research into the affidavits Cornelius Van Siclen, and the DAR.

Before I blow your bubble into the emptiness of space I am going to tell you some things that apparently you do not now know. I assure you that unlike you and Van Curen, with your allegations about the DAR, affidavits, Violetta, Cornelius Van Siclen and the elders, I can back up everything I am about to tell you with documentation.

You appear to have fallen into the identical trap that Violetta Voorhees walked into when she completed her DAR application. Violetta recorded in her DAR application that Cornelius Van Sickle and Catherine Johnson were married in June 1771. In 1901 the Van Sickle name apparently had replaced the Van Siclen name in the generation of Eastlings born to Maria Van Siclen and Luther Calvin Eastling. Van Sickle continued to be used in the Eastling and Voorhees letter into the 1930's.

Violetta Voorhees spelled the Van Sickle name both correctly and incorrectly in her application. However, no place in the DAR membership application does the spelling - Van SICKLEN or Van Siclen appears.

Violetta submitted her DAR membership application containing the Van Sickle name of Cornelius Van Sickle EIGHT MONTHS (8) before the affidavits were written.

Violetta was given local chapter membership status. Eight months later DAR headquarters appears to have requested that Violetta provide affidavits supporting her direct blood line to her Revolutionary Veteran, Cornelius Van Sickle) who's name she had entered on her application.

It is not known why DAR headquarter took eight months before requesting supporting affidavits. We assume that the DAR was investigating the information that Violetta had placed in her application about her Revolutionary Veteran. What the DAR questioned is not known.

Violetta after receiving notification that the DAR wanted supporting affidavits then contacted an Uncle living in another State and asked him to send to her the Eastling Bible. She also at some point asked Fanny and Ferdinand to write the affidavits.

I will point out that only after Violetta had read the Eastling Bible entry that the name of her Veteran was Cornelius Van Siclen did she probably realize that she had inserted the wrong name, Cornelius Van Sickle, in her application. It is reasonable and logical to assume that if Violetta had known prior to submitting her application that her veteran’s name was Cornelius Van Siclen, Violetta would have inserted that name in her membership application.

Well now - surprise! surprise! - The DAR never received affidavits, which would have supported the name of Van Sickle as Violetta's Revolutionary Veteran.

What the DAR received was affidavits and a transcribed Bible entry, which contained the name of Cornelius Van Siclen as the Revolutionary Veteran for Violetta Voorhees.

Apparently neither deponent was going to compromise their integrity or their sworn oath by writing in their affidavits the name Violetta had written on her application, Cornelius Van Sickle.

The documentation that I have is the affidavits and Violetta's complete DAR application.
Here are the approval dates on the DAR application.

Application examined and approved Nov. 14 1906
Approved by Chapter Regent, Chapter Secretary, Chapter Registrar.

Examined and approved Sept 24 1907 Registrar General

Affidavits dated

Violetta - April 6 1907
Fanny Kelly - April 17 1907
Ferdinand Eastling April 22 1907

First approval Nov 14 1906


What do you think about that final approval by THE NATIONAL BOARD OF MANAGEMENT? How does that compare with your written statement - "Her membership was denied by the national office."

Where you do get your convoluted information is a mystery. I believe you just make up whatever you choose to create and pay no attention to competent research of facts before putting both feet into your mouth. And you surely did that with your comment "Her membership was denied by the national office."

The NATIONAL BOARD OF MANAGEMENT approval breaks a couple of dozen eggs over your head also.

Let me know when you and Van Curen agree about the birth and death date of affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. Following that discussion would be interesting but I don't think I will bother because I know when Cornelius Van Siclen died, where he died, where he is buried and I know the approximate year he was born. I also know that Catherine Johnson was his first wife, that she died either at the birth of Maria Van Siclen or between the birth and before Fanny was at an age where she personally knew her birth mother. an age of about 6-7. You understand that Fanny did not testify that she knew her grandmother whereas Ferdinand when he testified that he knew his grandfather he was also telling those who read his affidavit that he had a personal knowledge of his grandmother Catherine Johnson - consequently there is nothing in a discussion between you and Van Curen relating to the birth and death dates of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen or Catherin Johnson that is of interest to myself.

I am convinced that if the both of you put as much effort into researching the truths contained in the affidavits as you put into finding imagined errors in the affidavits you might eventually discover who the parents of affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen really are. I told you where to look - for a Cornelius Van Siclen born about 1755 more or less by a few years, who had a father also named Van Siclen and not Van Sicklen/Van Sickelen. You might also research for a burial of a Van Siclen in Quebec in 1850. Barrauta would be a good place to begin. You should also search Canada for a Maria Van Siclen born in Canada and not New York. Who knows perhaps the Census saying she was born in Canada could be correct.

Ya all have a nice day now.


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