For anyone who has been following the controversey of who was Maria's mother - Catharine Johnson or Hannah Lawson - the difference between Eddy and myself lies in what we consider "Evidence".To Eddy, "evidence" are the reminisces and "tale telling" that family members exchangeat family picnics and other social gatherings.While the stories are admittedly interesting, they often contain errors.The biggest problem with family folklore is that it tends to change over the years with repeated retelling.Hence, it is necessary to corroborate "family stories" with "real records".To the genealogist, "evidence" lies in the "real records" that resulted from the daily lives of the people in question.A 1907 family letter - or even affadavit - about people who have been dead more than 50 years and claiming knowledge of military service of more than 120 years before may give us clues of where to look for evidence, but are not, themselves, evidence of those people/events.The only part of the DAR application that is considered "evidence" is the certified Bible entries.
Eddy says "There is simply no reason or justification for me to continue to expend effort and waste time with my submission of additional documents, which prove the already known validity of the affidavits."Problem is...no documents have ever been submitted proving the validity of the affadavits.Eddy attempts to use the legal definition of an affadavit as sole proof that the statements are true.If such were the case, then everyone in prison today was falsely convicted, since each of them swore under oath that they were innocent.The affadavit6s are "NOT" known to be valid, and it is "NOT" unreasonable for us to expect Eddy to provide documents proving their validity, especially in light of the fact that ALL known REAL evidence proves that they contain errors.
I have not "vandalized" any of the documents contained in Violet's DAR application.I simply have done the intelligent thing given the circumstances - I question their accuracy.If the claims made in those affadavits are true, then there are supporting documents in existence to establish their validity.Solid research has proven the reverse, however...that claims made in the affadavits are obviously false.For anyone having a vested interest in this line, I suggest that you, too, question the validity of those affadavits and take the time to research this family in depth.Once you do, you will realize that the affadvaits make claims that are false.
I don't doubt that Eddy's grandfather passed the Catharine Johnson name on to Eddy and others.And I don't claim that he got the name specifically from the Violetta DAR application.His access to the name comes from the usual "family folklore" sources.The people who got the name from Violetta/Ferdinand/Fanny told others, who then told others, who then told others.The misinformation spreads like wildfire, and quickly becomes common knowledge.I don't know who Eddy's grandfather got the info from...but I do know that he got it "after" Violet gleaned the name Catharine Johnson from the marriage license record.How do I know that?Because she took the name from a record belonging to 2 people who are "proven" to not be Maria's parents...they never even left Dutchess County, New York, and that Cornelius died in 1806, not 1850.Since her source was wrong, reasonable doubt is created as to whether the name is even right.Add to that the "real" records which not only identify her real parents, but her birth place, as well...and a paper trail which leads from New York to Canada, completing the line of evidence.This is why I keep challenging Eddy to produce "ANYTHING" containing the name Catharine Johnson dated prior to Violet's DAR application.He can't do it, because Violet's error is where the name originated from.He can use any dodge he chooses, but it doesn't change the fact that name was never used in this family until Violet made her research error.It is that simple.But don't take my word for it...do the research and learn the truth for yourselves.Eddy would never make such a suggestion.He wants everyone to simply accept everything he says, without proof, without research, and without question