Well, thank you Lee for finally sharing with the Cessna website your information regarding the Sisney family in Surrey, England. We have long been waiting for this.Now, perhaps we can put to rest the 'mystery' of the Sisney/Cisney family from England.If, in fact, Howard Cessna, an attorney like Lee Sisney, misrepresented his information when he wrote his two volumes nearly 100 yrs ago in an attempt to illegally acquire land holdings, so be it but I haven't seen any records that indicated that he did, in fact, do this but we can't change the past. It just means that the current Cessna/Cissna/Cissne/Cisna/Cisne researchers will have to be more diligent and careful with their findings.And if in fact we were not the Revolutionary war heroes that Howard led to us to believe and were indeed, Tories, oh well.....my 4th gr granddad, John Culbertson, DID fight for freedom from the Crown in the Rev War and was not a Tory.......and HIS father died fighting the French and Indians in 1756. AND Culbertson's sister did in fact marry that Tory, Charles Cessna.
I know I am a descendent of Col Charles Cessna and his wife Elizabeth Cessna and that they died in Georgia, Kentucky or Mississippi by 1811 and are not buried in Bedford Co. PA. They were too old to begin having kids 18 yrs after they married on March 4, 1770 since the research on this Charles and Elizabeth in Bedford Co indicates that their first born was born in 1788 and Elizabeth was not in her 40's when she started having babies and was not in her 60's when she stopped as this branch of the family would have us believe.Charles Cessna, 'scroundrel' that he appears to have been, was listed in the Greene Co, GA tax records in 1783, along with his brother William........both are listed as Cessna's.In Mississippi, William is listed in a Will book for the Osburn family as 'Cissna' but fromSheppinstown, Pa...which we know is Shippensburg but in this will book, it was listed as "Sheppinstown"....(more mispelling!!).........either way you cut it, they were Cessna/Cesna/Cisna's
As literate as the early Cessna men in PA were when they wrote their wills, ensuring that they did indeed get the name spelling correctly, I can assume that my gr gr gr grandmother in Muhlenberg Co, Ky also was able to spell the family last name correctly as Cessna just as her father was able to spell his last name CULBERTSON, as did her children pass this correct info down. As far as I know, some marginally 'illiterate' person entered our Cessna name into the land and tax books incorrectly as Cisney or Cisna.I can't change that. My gr gr gr grandmother entered our name in Muhlenberg Co, Ky as Cessna in 1815 and as 'pious' as she was, per her son-in-law who indicated this in his autobiography in 1858, I doubt that she would lie about the spelling of the family name.That works for me as it worked for my grandfather and his father, etc...and until I learn differently, the 'myths' or 'fraud' that Howard Cessna perpetrated on the family will continue to be what I work from as I continue my research which I started 24 yrs ago. I will continue to 'know what I know' which is that we are Cessna's and that Cisna and Cesna were just mispelled versions of our name. No one back then had a handle on Phoentics any more than they do today.The name was mispelled back then just as often as it is today.As I indicated in other entries, I found a 'Stephen Cesna' listed as an executor of a will for a John French in Philadelphia in 1748.Since someone spelled his name Cesna, with one S, I must assume that he was NOT a Cisney or Sisney......but a Cessna, just with a mispelled name. BECAUSE FEW PEOPLE COULD SPELL BACK THEN!! Like the Cisna's in Kentucky and elsewhere, I will assume that they are Cessna's; just mispelled like Stephen Cessna was mispelled in Philadelphia in 1748. Per the will of John Cessna in Shippensburg in 1793 when he listed his son Jonathan.....and then Jonathan was found in Kentucky along with his wife, Mary Friend, we must conclude that they were Jonathan CESSNA and wife MARY Friend and that their family name was butchered out in the wilderness by 'uneducated' tax and land recorders when they listed them as Cisneys. This family used Cessna and still uses Cessna.
Cisney and Sisney may be another family from Surrey but Cesna and Cisna and Cissna and probably Cisne and Cisney are Cessna to me until I learn otherwise.Sisneymay be from Surrey but Cisney is probably still Cessna and while I do not hold a 'certificate' in genealogy research, I consider myself, after 24 yrs, as professional as any other person who took up this hobby and gets paid for it. Having been in law enforcement and having been an Invesigator professionally, I consider myself to be a professional when it comes to doing research and 'investigations' and I use a good deal of logic and circumstanial evidence is always a factor in genealogy.I personally have not seen any evidence submitted that would indicate that the Sisney's/Cisney's were a separate family.....I only have information from two attorneys, one dead and one alive, who tell me what the 'facts' were and are about the family.Well, the dead attorneys' facts are just as significant as the living attorney but the living attorney has been able to do more research 100 yrs later and may have new info to share with us. Listen, nothing would make me happier than for someone to come forward on this website and present documents and references to this website for all of us to refer to and check out.None has been presented here and unfortunately, I am not retired yet to be able to go and sit and read archives tax records.But one day!!!!
I will say that Mr. Sisney has mailed to me copies of some of his findings that do indicate the Tory foundation regarding the Cessna's and I do appreciate his sharing of this information with me but I would love to see him post this information here, in the Cessna Family Forum, for everyone to see. He has also provided me with new information in Kentucky regarding my Cessna and Culbertson families where I can begin more research.
Have a wonderful New Years everyone!!