This qualifies as both a non-sequitor and nonsense:
EG: "Why would Violetta create a fictitious name where no name was required and how does a daughter and niece influence her mother and uncle into disgarding their mother's real name and subsitute a fictitious name in an affidavit for which they swore to tell the truth[?]"
Violetta, as Mr. Van Curen has constantly maintained, made a genealogical "slip." She knew she was dealing with a Cornelius Van Sic[k]len, old enough to be a veteran of the American Revolution, and located your ancestor Cornelius Van Sic[k]len with a wife named Catherine Johnson. This was all Violetta needed, under the loose standards of the time, to assert that which she asserted. Because she was stupid enough to write Catherine's name on her application (when, according to you, it was not even required), does not make it true, Ed. For all it was worth, except to you, she might just as well have written-in Jackie Onasis.
Once again, there is no doubt that your Cornelius Van Sic[k]len married Catherine Johnson. This was his second wife. Your ancestress was the first wife, Phebe Vanderveer.
(It is unfortunate, for you, that Violetta's application to the DAR, and that the DAR was hardly careful about its acceptances, that Violetta was, despite all, accepted--using the information she supplied. She almost did not "pass" in her own time and will surely not have passed in this today.)
I continue to wonder just what it is that you gain by denying your rightful ancestry?