Your comments were interesting. The argument began two or more years ago with e-mail. It them moved to the Van Sickle/Van Sicklen formum and then lapped over into the Eastling forum.
Curently it appears on both forums. If you haven't read the Van Sickle/van Sicllen forum you should visit that one also. On the Van Sickle forum the subjects were at times different and I believe when it first began I was using a differenty User name than legacy. At one time I used blackcloud at another time it may have been ceasar with a number after it. I am not absolutely certain. I move between ISP's which is the reason for the different user names and e-mail addresses.
You are correct - the exchange is very repetitive. As to being unproductive - that decision is in the eye of the reader.
I currently disagree that the Brighton family and the Dutchess NY family are one and the same family. I approach genealogy somewhat differently than the run of the mill researcher does. I approach it from a DNA standpoint. Now I know I and most other people will never have laboratory results to review. Which is why I always place great emphasize on the parents names, both maiden and surname of the father.
In the Brighton versus Dutchess NY family, Doug is attempting to meld the two and was looking good until I reviewed his photographs on his web site of the Brighton Cemetery Markers. What I found surprised even me. Different birth dates, different surnames, the use of Senior/Sr./Snr. telling everyone that the family had a child with the identical name of his father (a child appearing no place in the Van Sicklen source records). There is much more but the birth dates are the key items preventing a meld.
I agree that it is not unusual to find members of the same families buried in the same cemetery with names spelled differently. I also agree that there is no end to the variations in the spelling of surnames/maiden names etc. I also agree that birth records do not often match ages on grave stones - celebrated birth dates do not always match recorded birth dates and on and on.
You wrote - "It seems that the heart of this debate is whether Maria, daughter of Cornelius and Hannah of Brighton, was the same Maria married to Luther Eastling. Mr Van Curen has presented a very strong case suggesting she was."
You are correct. The debate begin because affidavits showed that a Maria Van Siclen was married to Luther Calvin Eastling. I unequivocally support the affidavits. Doug changed the name of Maria Van Siclen in the affidavits to Maria Van Sicklen and then married Maria Van Sicklen to Luther Calvin Eastling. That is when the debate became a very bitter and angry argument. Later Doug reversed himself and said that it was indeed Maria Van Siclen who married Luther. That is how the Brighton Cemetery Van Sicklen Snr. issue began. However I will not bore you with more. If you want the complete story, you can review the Van Sickle/van Sicklen forum. Most of it appears there.
The argument centers itself on the Eastling affidavits. Doug and Richard put down the affidavits alleging that they contain perjured testimony by the deponents to get their daughter/niece a DAR membership. I have no additional supporting docments for the affidavits. They were notarized by my great uncle and great aunt.Doug and Richard cannot provide a scrap of evidence which would support their allegations about perjured testimony.
As a child, my grandfather Eastling told me stories about the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen (father of Maria Van Siclen) and how he fought in the Revolution, along with the source of the stories. One of Doug and Richard's allegations is that the father of Maria Van Siclen is not a Revolutionary Veteran. No evidence to prove the allegation except they can't find his name on the Military rolls. Considering that thousands of those records have disappeared in the intervening 200 plus years, there are many veterans who have no records.
As I said there are only the three affidavits - nothing else. However - the evidence that the affidavits do not contain errors appears within the affdavits themselves.I have nothing else I can show you.
You may want to ask Doug and Richard to provide evidence for one of their allegations - why if Annetje Lawson, who they allege is the grand mother of the deponents and the alleged wife of Cornelius Van Siclen, does the name Annetje Lawson NOT appear in the affidavits?
Considering that the deponents personally knew their grandmother for 20 and 11 yrs respectively before they left Canada for the U.S. It is reasonable to believe that the deponents would have written their grandmothers name (known to the deponents) into their affidavits.
The name Annetje Lawson does not appear therein. Doug and Richard allege Annetje Lawson to be the deponents grandmother.
The deponents wrote Catherine Johnson as their grandmother into their affidavits -The deponents personally knew their grandmother, prior to leaving Canada, and then having the opportunity to be told by the deponents mother Maria Van Siclen about their grandmother Catherine Johnson until 1868 when Maria Van Siclen died there is no doubt in my mind that Catherine Johnson was the grandmother of the deponents and wife of Affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen.
I am descended from a Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria Van Siclen. I have a question for you.
I exchange correspondence with a lady who found the following information a couple of years ago:
"And I also found on the LDS site, a Luther Calvin Esling, born May 30, 1781, in Upton, Worcester, MA. Parents: Richard Esling and Rhoda ???. "
Would you Bob Esling have any information about the above Esling family? Our problem is that the name Luther Calvin Esling may or may not be the same Luther Calvin Eastling in our lineage. Our problem is two fold, the spelling of Esling versus Eastling, although we know they are varients of each other, and the Luther Calvin Esling birth date of May 30 1781, The birth date of our Luther Calvin Eastling is May 30 1791 taken from the notarized and transcribed bible entries written by Maria van Siclen about 1814. We believe the May 30 1791 birth date to be correct coming as it did from Maria Van Siclen's bible entry and knowing that Luther was her husband it is reasonable to believe that Maria knew his birthday (unless Luther had lied to her before they were married)
Luther Calvin Eastling born May 30 1791 believed to be in Boston, Mass. - Parents not known.
Luther Calvin Esling born May 30 1781 born in Upton, Worcester, Mass. Parents shown earlier this post.
Can you give us any help or leads on Luther Calvin Esling.
Correspondence about Luther Calvin Esling by e-mail would be preferable, however the Eastling forum is alright if you prefer.