T'is indeed unfortunate that you believe as you do - however you are incorrect on all of your assumptions. The affidavits (reject them if you must) tell the real story.
My advisary has no documentation which would support a single allegation he has made, except for a military land grant in Canada to a Luther Eastling, however even that grant does not use the name Luther Calvin Eastling - rather only Luther Eastling. Then too we have information that Luther Calvin Eastling did not always spell his name Eastling but on occasion used (Easling) (no "T"). Both spellings now appear in the Eastling genealogy - having been updated.
And so it goes - The affidavits found in DAR records are the earliest documents available to date except for some Canadian Census which deal with Eastlings (none of which mention a Cornelius Van Siclen/Catherine Johnson).
When one of my opponents can provide documentation which will conclusively establish (prove) that any part or parts of the affidavits on which the beginning (Cornelius Van Siclen/Catherine Johnson)of the Eastling genealogy is based, are incorrect then, but only then, will I change the genealogy to reflect the corrections which are provided.
You understand that I am quit willing to correct items in the genealogy which may not be correct, but will only do so if and when ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION is presented supporting the changes that may be required.
To date I have read much rhetoric about how wrong the affidavits are, have read much dealing with alternatives to the first generation but I continue to wait for original documentation which will prove that any part or parts of the affidavits are not correct and that the deponents did not tell the truth in all respects. The people who differ with my conclusions have failed to produce a single document supporting their allegations, assumptions etc. etc.
No record has been found to date which records the parents of Cornelius Van Siclen, the marriage of Cornelius Van Siclen to Catherine Johnson and the parents of Catherine Johnson. You may check Colonial records and what you will discover is that there were many Catherine Johnson's living during those days - not just the one talked about by my advisary.
My apponents and your problem is that I am a direct descendant, through my mother, of the people I have published in the Eastling genealogy. That certainly doesn't make me correct on all that I have published, which I freely admit - however the documentation I have published supporting my genealogic position (primarily affidavits for which no proveable errors have been discovered and presented) makes me more correct than any individual who speculates that the affidavits are wrong but who posses no documentation that will prove their allegations.
The only evidence presented by my advisaries, which alleges errors on my part and in my documentation, is based on speculation, wishful thinking, convoluted interpretations and the wildest of imaginations. At no time throughout this entire website disucssion and prior e-mails has a single document been presented which can offset the truth in the affidavits.
You do understand, I hope, that all my adviseries haveaccomplished to date is bad mouth the affidavits about how incorrect they are based on my adviseries allegations that the deponents were wrong about what they lived and wrote.
What is overlooked by various readers (yourself included)is that my adviseries have failed to produce a particle of evidence which can prove a single error allegation made by my adviseries about the affidavits. The contents of the affidavits will remain correct until conclusively proven incorrect and they are woven into the Eastling genealogy.
If the affidavits are incorrect, then the genealogy is incorrect. If the affidavits are correct, then the genealogy is correct. All that is left for those who disagree with the affidavits and myself is to provide the documented evidence that will prove that any part or parts of the affidavits are not correct.
As a "for instance". I have a copy of a letter written by a great grandson of Cornelius Van Siclen/Catherine Johnson wherein the grandson refers to his great grandparents Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson as Cornelius Van Sickle and Katherine. I know the use of Katherine Van Sickle does not "prove" anything as it relates to Catherine Johnson. However, contrary to my advisary's allegations, the appearance of "Katherine" does prove that the writers great grandmother was known to him as Katherine Van Sickle from the moment the great grandson could understand the English language - and this great grandson was born in 1879, long before 1906/1907, when Violetta is "alleged by my advisary to have created the name Catherine Johnson".
The letter also demonstrates that a name spelling of Van Sickle had come into use for Van Siclen (the name transcribed from the Bible entry appearing in the affidavits)sometime after 1907. Consequently, the grandson who wrote Cornelius Van Sickle and Katherine, would have written Cornelius Van Siclen and Katherine if the Van Siclen name had not evolved into Van Sickle.I therefore submit that Katherine Van Sickle and Katherine Van Siclen is the same individual. I further submit that Katherine Van Siclen is indeed Catherine Johnson appearing in the affidavits.
Of some interest is the fact that prior to discovering the affidavits in the DAR files, the Van Sickle name was used in the Eastling genealogy - as opposed to Van Siclen - discovered as a notarized transcript from Maria Van Siclen's Bible.
I close with this - Quoting a comment you made - "As I have followed this 'Catherine Johnson' statement, I read Mr. Van Curen's notation of her as that she did exist as Cornelius van Sic(k)len's SECOND wife. He never stated that she was 'created' by Violetta or others". Unquote
The CATHERINE JOHNSON appearing in the Eastling genealogy is the FIRST WIFE of Cornelius Van Siclen appearing in the Eastling Genealogy.That fact is mentioned in one of the postings I made to this website.
You sir are not in possession of volumns of internet e-mail that passed between my advisary and myself prior to moving to this web site. However I can assure you that my advisary did indeed state in those early e-mails that Violetta created "Catherine Johnson" in order to develop a name for the SPOUSE of her Revolutionary Veteran Cornelius Van Siclen, in order that she could gain membership in the DAR.
You see, my advisary, a man who initially and for at least two years thereafter, rejected the Van Siclen spelling as documented in the affidavits, is the same manwho created a marriage between Luther Calvin Eastling and Maria Van Sicklen (note the K) and proceeded to "prove" such a marriage "occurred" using his imagination and no original documentation.
My advisary was finally compelled to admit on this website that he had no documetation which would prove his allegations of a stated marriage between a Maria Van Sicklen and Luther Calvin Eastling. He also admitted in one or two of his last postings that the Van Siclen name was indeed spelled correctly in the transcribed Bible entry. Ergo - no relationship ever existed between Eastling's and Van Sicklen's (note the inserted K) ever existed.
The daughter of Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson was named Maria Van Siclen and not Maria Van Sicklen. Later my advisary alleged that there was no Van Siclen buried in Canada. He was eventually notified by someone in Canada that there was indeed a Van Siclen grave in Ontario, Canada, with photos to prove it. That grave is of course not that of Cornelius Van Siclen, who is buried according to the affidavits in Bacauta, Quebec, Canada. No Bacauta has been found to date, however there is a Barrauta, Quebec for whatever that may mean.
The point here is that my advisary did not hesitate to create marriage allegations using an incorrectly spelled name,while at the same time failing to check with the DAR to determine if a Spouse was required on the DAR membership application. Extremely atrocious research technics!! DAR response to an inquiry by myself - NO SPOUSES NAME WAS REQUIRED FOR DAR MEMBERSHIP - CONSEQUENTLY VIOLETTA HAD NO REASON TO CREATE THE NAME CATHERINE JOHNSON - the spouse could have been left off the application with no adverse effects.
Perhaps you may wish to mull over why a DAR applicant would fraudulantly create a spouses name (Catherine Johnson) when the DAR did not require the spouses name. If Violetta had not known the name of her Revolutionary Veteran all she had to do was ask her mother or optionally leave the spouses name blank.
It is true that I posses nothing in addition to copies of the original affidavits, which support the comments about Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson in my Eastling genealogy.
It is also true that my advisary has not a single copy of any type of original document wherein the names Catherine Johnson and Cornelius Van Siclen appear together. My advisary has made many allegations about the first and second generations of the Eastling genealogies - yet the bottom line remains that he continues to be unable to present a single document, which supports a single allegation he has presented.
What I have found humerous is my advisary's continued insistance that if I produced a single letter which would refer to Cornelius Van Siclen and Catherine Johnson, he could accept what I had proposed in the first generation of the Eastling genealogy. Of some interest is the fact that while I had nothing but the notarized affidavits to prove my conclusions, my advisary had nothing except his personal speculations to prove his allegations.
Should you at some point care to do so, I suggest you begin with the first letter published on the Van Siclen/Catherine Johnson subject on this web site. What you will discover is that although Van Curen has provided much in the way of un-supported allegations based on a rather vivid imagination, he has failed to provide original document which would support a single allegation he has made.
I have answered your comments because my records indicate that you have not previously commented on the subject. There will be no follow up response by myself to anyone who has previously commented on the discussion.
Parts of the discussion appear on the Van Sicklen forum and additional parts on the Eastling forum.