"Another nail in the coffin".Interesting analogy, since there has yet not been even one nail put "in the coffin".
Fact: Van Sicklen and Van Siclen are spellings used by one family, the descendants of Ferdinandus Van Sycklin.The names are used interchangeably in family lines across the country through the early 1800s.The contents of the DAR application contain more than one spelling of the surname, so how do you know which one is right?The name Eastling is spelled more than one way in the DAR application.Where is the insistence on exact spelling when looking at that set of documents?The ONLY document you have as proof of the fantasy Catharine (Johnson)Van Sicklen line, the contents of the DAR application, itself contains numerous spelling variations.You can't have it both ways.If a spelling variation in a record proves it false, then the contents of the DAR application are false, by your standards.In fact, spelling variations were very common in the 19th century, even in the records of just one individual.To say that Maria Van Sicklen and Maria Van Siclen are 2 different people, because of the letter "K" is utterly riduculous and would be laughed at by any experienced/knowledgeable genealogist.Such a claim is proof that the claimant has virtually no knowledge or experience in genealogy research, and should not be taken seriously.
Fact: Death of Cornelius Van Sicklen of Murray, Ontario, March, 1850, is a match to the bible recorded death of Maria's father, as certified by the Notary in the DAR application.(notary said he could not read the day, but certified Mar, 1850).Cornelius of Murray's death, Mar 19, 1850 can be verified by the records of the Van Sicklen Cemetery, Murray...on microfilm and available through any LDS Family History Center.
Fact:Cornelius of Murray had a daughter, Maria, born exatly Sep 15, 1801(Fishkill DRC).Maria Van Sic(k)len Eastling was born Sep 15, 1801(bible entry).Ed would have us believe that the Fishkill record is for someone else, because he doesn't believe that Hannah Lawson and Hannah Lossing could be the same person.(back to the exact spelling nonsense)However, the Lassen/Lassing/Lossing/Lawson family association(They are having a picnic next month in Ontario, if you would like to go ask them) would heartily disagree with that bit of "exact spelling" nonsense.You can get a clear picture of this family from the "Descendants of Pieter Lassen", vols 130 and 131 of the New York Genealogical and Biographical Record.It includes Cornelius Van Sicklen and Hannah Lawson who moved to Murray.
Fact:Cornelius of Murray...his daughter, Maria had a brother and a grandfather named Ferdinand.Who do you suppose Maria VS Eastling named her son, Ferdinand, after?Think about it...perhaps a light will come on.
Fact: Luther Eastling accepted a Crown Land Grant in 1846, in Murray, not very far from Cornelius Van Sicklen's land.Grantees picked their lots from available Crown Lands.Why do you suppose he picked a lot so close to the Cornelius you say he isn't related to?
Fact:In depth records searches throughout Ontario and Quebec Provinces establish that there was only 1 Cornelius Van Sicklen(spell it any way you like) living anywhere in Canada, that could have been the father of Maria Van Sic(k)len Eastling.
The marriage date question is still open.I believe it was simply misread, following the Notary's comment that entries were difficult to read.I haven't ruled out the possibillity that 1814 could be right, just that it isn't logical given the facts known to date.So, show me something to make me believe 1814 is correct.
The "exact spelling" nonsense is so utterly ridiculous, it requires no further notation.
So...for the claims of the DAR application to be true, there are 2 Maria Van Sicklens - both born exactly Sep 15, 1801 in New York.They both have fathers named Cornelius and both fathers named Cornelius died in Canada in Mar, 1850. (The Eastling bible gave the date, but not a place.The place, somewhere Quebec, came from the faded memory of an elderly respondant, and cannot be verified with Canadian records) One Cornelius has a father and son named Ferdinand...the other has a grandson named Ferdinand, but that is just a coincidence.Luther Eastling chose land near the Cornelius who was not his father in law, that too being a coincidence.For the Cornelius of Murray, there is a relatively endless supply of good records from Canada, beginning with his arrival in 1806.For the other Cornelius, the fantasy Cornelius, there is not 1 record of any kind...not so much as a notable mention on a tax list, census record...absolutely nothing.Mr Norman...if you can't see the obvious problem here, you need to run to the nearest University and take a course in logic.While you are at it, take a course in genealogy.You have so much to learn.
Fact:I have the necessary documentation to establish what I am saying is correct.Outside the marriage date controversy, nearly everything on my FTM page can be verified with original source documents.I will gladly supply source references to anyone seeking truth, so that they may find the records and see for themselves.Neither you nor Mr Gusman has even one single document from Canada, 1800-1850, which supports the false lineage claimed in the DAR application.Flimmflammed is what you call two people(Ed and Greg) who ask you to believe a fairy tale, when they cannot provide so much as one single document to substantiate it.Face it, Canadian records say those people never existed.
Fact:The name Catharine Johnson as mother of Maria Van Sicklen Eastling originated with Violet Voorhees DAR application in 1906, and her claim that the Cornelius Van Sicklen who married Catharine Johnson in 1771 were Maria's parents.The claim has been proven false.In reality, all Fanny and Ferdinand did in their affadavits was repeat Violet's error.No record, family letter, bible entry, or document of any kind prior to 1906 gives the name "Catharine" as the mother of Maria Van Sicklen Eastling, let alone specifically Catharine Johnson.
Put simply, Mr Gusman and Mr Norman need to either provide supporting documentation in the form of verifiable Canadian source records to support their claims, or admit that they have been chasing an error and begin pursuing the true ancestors of Maria Van Sicklen Eastling.Time to quit blowing smoke, gentlemen.You have no credibility if you can't provide a verifiable paper trail, and we all know you can't.
Fact: Hannah Lawson, aka Hannah Lossing, aka Annetje Lassing, aka Annetje Lassen, etc, was the mother of Maria Van Sicklen Eastling, as established by the records of the Dutch Reformed Church of Fishkill, New York, and corroborated by the Eastling Bible entries, and Maria's cemetery record.Hannah is buried next to her husband Cornelius Van Sicklen, lot B28, Murray, Ontario Canada.A hastily done DAR application containing numerous proven errors will not change that.
As to Henry Eastling of Oxford being a son of Luther and Maria...how did you come to that conclusion?Because he has the right last name in the census?Refer to the 1794 and 1796 record of Loyalists in Ontario Province.You will find that there were a lot of Eastlings in Ontario that also could have been Henry's father.Before you put down the research efforts of others, you should spend some time doing some actual research of your own, so that you will at least know what you are talking about.Mr Gusman grasps at straws, desperately hoping to hang onto his fantasy.I bet he feels accomplished now that he finally got someone to believe him.