If one Fishkill baptism record were all the evidence that existed, Mr Gusman would have a valid argument.However, numerous records beginning with Annetje's birth, her marriage to Cornelius, the estate record of her grandfather, Baptismal records of her children, baptismal sponsorships with siblings, etc, etc, etc...establish beyond any doubt that Annetje Lassing, Annetje/Hannah Lossing of Dutchess County, New York, and Hannah Lawson of Brighton Ontario, Canada are the same person.Given that Annetje Lassing, Annetje/Hannah Lossing, and Hannah Lawson are all married to Cornelius Van Sicklen, Any INTELLIGENT person would readily recognize that this is one woman, not 3 or 4.The available records simply prove what is already obvious.And, yes, the baptismal record is dated.When 2 or more children are baptised on the same date, the date is not re-entered.Look at the baptismal date of the previous record, and you will have the baptism date for Maria. The church will verify this.
Mr Gusman's accusations that I tampered with the name to turn Lossing into Lawson does nothing except show that he has not researched the family in question and that he is completely ignorant of the subject matter.Refer to Volume 130 and 131 of the New York Genealogical and Biographical record for the "Descendants of Pieter Lassen".The dedicated genealogists who have researched this family readily recognize that Lassing, Lossing, and Lawson are all varitions used by the descendants of Pieter Lassen.If Mr Gusman would take the time to look at ALL baptisms(not just one) involving those various spellings in ALL Dutchess County Church records he would find that virtually noone in this family used one spelling exclusively.Cornelius Van Sicklen's wife, in various records, is found as Lassen, Lassing, Lossing, and Lawson...first name Annetje, or Hannah, noting that Hannah was the common nickname for Annetje.Mr Gusman would have us believe that, using his exact spelling nonsense, there must have been 8 different Cornelius Van Sicklens, all married to women with nearly identical names, since each EXACT spelling is another person.He used the same logic to claim that Cornelius Van Sicklen and Cornelius Van Siclen are different people.When you consider all the spelling variations in various records, of both Cornelius and his wife and using Mr Gusman's screwball logic, I come up with more than 30 different couples, all with nearly, but not quite, identical names.
Are Matthew Lossing and Annetje Lossing related?Yes...their fathers were brothers(refer to Vol 130/131, NYGB)They are also both found in Brighton Ontario as Hannah Lawson and Matthew Lawson, on adjoining parcels of land.The Van Sicklin Cemetery in Murray is actually on Lawson Land.If Mr Gusman would bother to do a little actual research, he would have known that.
Cornelius Van Siclen to Cornelius Van Sicklen is not a change.It is a recognized alternate spelling of the same name.Refer to several published genealogies of the Descendants of Ferdinandus Van Sycklin. Either spelling is acceptable. I simplychose to enter him under the spelling most often recorded.He has also been found, however,as Van Sicklin, Van Siklen, and Van Sighelen.Exact spelling was not a focus of 18th century record keeping, and only an idiot would insist that one letter differnece in a name proves it is a different person.Credible genealogists are well aware of spelling variations and take such into consideration, checking for all alternate spellings when searching for records.
Catherine Johnson to Hannah Lawson is not a change of anything.While there was a Catherine Johnson who married a Cornelius Van Sicklen, it has already been proven that she is in no way blood related to any descendant of Luther Eastling and Maria Van Sicklen.(she was actually 'step-great grandmother' to Maria)Catharine Johnson is buried in Rombout New Yor, never went to Canada, and did NOT give birth to a Maria, because that Cornelius already had a daughter named Maaria, by a previous marriage.No evidence has ever been presented establishing that a Catherine Johnson ever existed anywhere in the Van Sicklen-Eastling ancestry, and definitely not as Maria's mother.Nor is there any evidence that Maria's mother was named Catherine, of any maiden name.That name(Catherine Johnson) first entered the Eastling family from a DAR error made by Violet Voorhees in 1906.Before that date, no-one in the Eastling descent used the name Catherine Johnson and no family record exists using that name.You can't make a change from something that never existed.Consider the facts:
Maria Van Sicklen, daughter of Cornelius Van Sicklen and Hannah Lawson(I use Lawson instead of Lassing because that is how her death record reflects), was born 15 Sep, 1801(Fishkill DRC, and Vol 130/131 NYGBR).Maria Van Sicklen, wife of Luther Eastling, was born Sep 15, 1801(family Bible, Wisconsin Cemetery record)What is the probability that 2 Maria Van Sicklens, both daughters of Cornelius, and both on record in Ontario Canada could also both be born on Sep 15, 1801?Answer: It would occur naturally once in never.This alone proves we are talking about one person.But that is not all.Cornelius married to Hannah Lawson died in Canada, Mar 19, 1850(Van Sicklin Cemetery, Murray). Maria Van Sicklen Eastling's father died in Mar, 1850(family bible entry).Further proof that we are talking about one Maria.Maria, daughter of Hannah Lawson, had a brother named Ferdinand. Maria, wife of Luther Eastling had a son named Ferdinand.The combination of these three details eliminates any possibility of a coincidence.Mr Gusman wishes to distract by limiting the discussion to one baptismal record.When all the known evidence is considered collectively, there is no doubt whatsoever that Maria Van Sicklen Eastling was the daughter of Cornelius Van Sicklen and Hannah Lawson Of Murray, Brighton, Ontario, Canada.To ice the cake, Luther Eastling applied for, and received, a Crown Land Grant in Murray, not far from the farm of Cornelius Van Sicklen and Hannah Lawson.
Marriage date of Maria Van Sicklen to Luther Eastling is something I did change, but not without good cause.The source for the 1814 marriage date was the flawed DAR application. Maria was 12 years old.Given that her first known child was born in 1825, it considered by most who research this line that the bible entry was misread(the notary commented on the difficulty in reading the records)and should have been 1824, instead of 1814.Until an actual marriage record is found, the official record will reflect 1824, as that is consistent with the known birth dates of her children.
In comparison of our(Mr Gusman and mine) research:
I have a file nearly two inches thick, dedicted to the Van Sicklen/Lawson/Eastling research, containing documents from both New York and Canada.I have everything necessary to establish that Maria VS Eastling was the daughter of Hannah Lawson.
Mr Gusman's file consists solely of the contents of one highly flawed DAR application, most of which has been proven false, which includes two affadavits from elderly family members who claim Catherine Johnson was Maria's mother.Unfortunately, all they did was repeat the error made by the applicant, Violet Voorhees. The only thing having any value whatsoever in that entire DAR application, is the certified Bible entries...which also supports, with the dates mentioned, that Hannah Lawson was Maria's mother.Mr Gusman has never done anything resembling research, and he has never produced so much as one primary source document that would even suggest that the fairy tale he is passing around has any validity whatsoever.He simply asks that everyone believe what he is telling them on "Faith" alone.To the point, Mr Gusman has never done any research, has absolutely no credibility in genealogical research as a whole, and virtually everything he is trying to sell is unsupported and contrary to all known records of the time in question. On at least a dozen occassions I have challenged Mr Gusman to provide even a single piece of evidence substantiating his fantasy.He can't do it, because the people of his fantasy never existed, and therefore, no record of them exists.Proven: Maria Van Sicklen, wife of Luther Eastling, was the daughter of Cornelius Van Sicklen and Hannah Lawson Of Brighton Ontario.To anyone who reads this, I suggest you call Mr Gusman's bluff and ask him to provide all records which support his claims.He will offer only the DAR affadavits as his sole proof, because that is all he has.I certainly hope no-one falls for his far-fetched piece of of fiction, because it will lead only to a hopeless dead end.Mr Gusman does not seek truth, he seeks only to mislead.