You say "father and son". That answers my question. You have been using “your” to designate either a father or son or both interchangeably.I have been interpreting the manner in which you applied“your” as referring specifically and only to the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. The application by you of “your” to either father or son is what I found confusing and somewhat inexplicable.
Example - In a previous post you wrote- "…I hope that this is plain enough. YOUR Cornelius Van Sic[k]len married first, Femmetie (Phoebe) Vanderveer, then Catherine Johnson."
Waddel’sCornelius Van Sicklen, who married two wives is not the Cornelius Van Siclen in the affidavits and therefore should not to be referred to as “your” Cornelius and Catherine Johnson when writing to me.Waddel’s Cornelius is not the subject of the affidavits and therefore is not “your/my” Cornelius Van Sicklen.
When I write about affidavits I refer only to the people written about therein.I care nothing about the progenitors of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. Consequently, it matters not to me that Waddel,has a Cornelius Van Sicklen married to a Catherine Johnson as a second wife or that Waddel has a son named Cornelius born to Cornelius and Catherine who later became the husband of Annetje/Hannah Lawson. Neither Cornelius is a subject of the Eastling affidavits.
The Cornelius Van Siclen in the Eastling affidavits is not the Waddell Cornelius Van Sicklen married a second time to Catherine Johnson. In like manner the Cornelius Van Sicklen married to Annetje/Hannah Lawson is not the Cornelius Van Siclen in the Eastling affidavits.
The progenitor of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen is a mystery. He will remain a mystery until some unforeseen clue is uncovered which will point a researcher in the correct direction to reveal his progenitors and where he was born.
If at some point in time you, Harry Macy, Jr., Van Curen or any other researcher can discover a Cornelius Van Siclen born between 1750 and 1760 who later married as his first wife a Catherine Johnson and who died in Quebec, Canada in March 1850, then but only then will I agree that you have discovered the progenitor of affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen.
I do not fault you or Van Curen for your adherence to the Van Sickelen/Van Sicklen/Van Siclen lineage’s that you are attempting to meld into the affidavit testimony. You have your beliefs - I have mine.
I fail to understand why both you and Van Curen decided that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen in the Eastling affidavits had to be related to the lineage of Ferdenandus Van Sycklin presented by Waddel.
For myself, the antecedents of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen end with the affidavit Cornelius. There is nothing either in the affidavits, Eastling letters or Violetta’s DAR application, which would be a clue as to where to start looking for his progenitors.
I believe that Van Curen is primarily responsible for the faux pas which has led the both of you into attempting to create a lineage for the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen linked to descendents of Ferdenandus Van Sycklin and that Van Curen allowed Violetta’s DAR application to begin his trip down the yellow brick road.
Had Van Curen and you stepped close enough to the DAR application and the affidavits so that each of you could tell the trees from the forest, you would have recognized that there is absolutely nothing in either the DAR application or the affidavits that can be used to point any researcher in the EXCLUSIVE direction of the Ferdenandus Van Sycklin descendents, as opposed, for example, to descendents of the Van Sickles who settled in the Mohawk valley about 1623, or for that matter from descendents of the Canadian, Nova Scotia and even Holland Van Sickles, Sycklins or whatever.
Waddel has this to say – “The Baptismal Register of the Dutch Reformed Church of Readington, New Jersey commences February 21st, 1720. And was in use more than a century. Although continuing for so many years, yet this Baptismal Register is by no means complete; as it does not contain all the names of the children of the early progenitors. It is much to be regretted that all the names were not recorded. Had our ancestors imagined that their posterity would be tracing up their genealogy, they would probably have kept a more complete register which would have been of incalculable value to historians.”
Knowing that and without a clue from the affidavits or DAR application as to where a researcher might begin, you hitched your wagon to the Van Curen wagon and blindly followed the Van Sycklin descendent lineage. I believe, that without first thoroughly investigating what Van Curen was doing and without an in depth review of the affidavits and the DAR application , you allowed yourself to be suckered into following Van Curen’s thinking that the DAR application contained the clues that would lead to the progenitors of Cornelius Van Siclen.
Fact is that the DAR application is about 99 percent filled with errors. The second fact is that the DAR Headquarters apparently discovered items in the application that were questionable and eight months after submission required follow up affidavits which the DAR Headquarters probably believed would support the DAR application as submitted eight months earlier.Did they get a shock when instead of supporting the Cornelius Van Sickle Veteran, the affidavits contradicted that name and showed the name Cornelius Van Siclen for Violetta’s veteran.
The simple and obvious fact that DAR Headquarters wanted affidavits, which would substantiate the allegations name contained in the DAR application should have been a flashing red light to any interested person that something was decidedly wrong with the affidavits.
Incidentally, it would appear that in 1907 DAR Headquarters was much more thorough than either you or Van Curen are prepared to give them credit. Consider this – Van Curen went hook line and sinker for the contents of Violetta’s application, to the extent of researching a Van Sicklen lineage and revolutionary service for Van Sickle or Van Sicklen. Whereas DAR Headquarters detected a serious problem or problems and requested confirmation using affidavits.
The affidavits provide no clue about who the progenitors of Cornelius Van Siclen in the affidavits were or where he was born.The DAR application being 99 percent in error provides only false leads about the progenitors of Cornelius Van Siclen. The statement that the affidavit Cornelius enlisted from New York State may be a clue that he was born in New York but the clue is only implied, not factual. The affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen could have been born to any parents living any place, be it in Canada, Nova Scotia, the Mohawk Valley area of New York or even emigrated from Holland as a child and as an adult took on the name Van Siclen.
You informed me that you had conducted you own separate research – “please note that Doug and I reached our conclusions quite independently of one another--in terms of the pre-Canadian existence and generations of your ancestors. “ If you were not influenced by Van Curens initial research then upon what did you base your research of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. Where in the affidavits could you have found a clue that influenced you to research the descendants of Ferdenandus Van Syckling as opposed to the descendents of Van whatever living in other areas of North America.
Perhaps it was the Van Siclen name, certainly a logical decision, but what is self-evident is that you approached your research with the closed mind of a researcher, who, when he discovered that the statements contained within the affidavits did not match the people you were researching, immediately faulted the affidavits for containing errors.
Not for a moment did you recognize or acknowledgethat the affidavits could be correct and your search objectives flawed. It was yourself who locked you into a cold trail because you failed to understand that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen could have descended from anyone other than the Ferdenandus Van Sycklin lineage. It was you who failed to comprehend that the affidavits description is correct for a man descended from a different lineage or a Ferdenandus Sycklin descendent who got lost in the cracks of Wadell and or Bergen. The problem isn’t with the affidavits containing errors, the problem lies with you and Van Curen because of your tunnel vision that does not permit you to see before, after and around Waddell or Bergen.
Most researchers, when his/her research doesn’t end in hoped for results will regroup and look for reasons the research went wrong. Well your Van Sicklen research did not find the man described in the affidavits so rather than fault the affidavits for containing errors, I suggest that both of you back up, regroup and resume again by researching other Van whatever’s from different localities .
For all that any of us knows, the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen, prior to meeting and marrying Catherine Johnson, could have been any surname of any nationality. He may have changed his birth surname to Van Siclen for many reasons unknown to us. Examples - Perhaps he changed his name to Van Siclen because he was a Colonial firebrand, one of the minute men or Boston Tea Party agitators, who made it so hot for the British before the Battle of Bunker Hill in 1775 that he was wanted for treason, changed his name to Van Siclen and later enlisted using the name Van Siclen when full scale war began –the Colonists began actions against the British in 1763 culminating in the Revolutionary war 1775 - 1783. Cornelius would have been at the correct age to be a teenage hothead ready to do or die for his Colonies. Perhaps he had accidentally or intentionally killed someone and was wanted for murder or robbery. Perhaps he had married early and simply deserted his wife or family and wanted to get lost so he assumed the name Van Siclen. Perhaps his father or the affidavit Cornelius himself are men who fell through the cracks of Waddell and Bergen or never had their names recorded in a baptismal record and got lost and was found in the affidavits.
The point of this is that neither I, yourself, Van Curen, or Harry Macy Jr. has the remotest idea what may have occurred in the affidavit Cornelius VanSiclen’s past. Therefore, neither you or Van Curen has grounds for faulting and alleging that the statements contained in the affidavits are errors.
That is why I unequivocallyinsist that irrefutable evidence be provided which will prove that any alleged error is indeed a genuine error. I have repeatedly stated that until the day such evidence is produced, I will treat the affidavits as free of any type of error whatsoever. Merely because you and Van Curen can’t find the progenitors of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen in your Van Sicklen lineage’s does not mean that the problem is within the affidavits – the problem is that your research is flawed because you based it on DAR application clues which have been proven by the affidavits to be wrong and you researched the incorrect lineage. Even DAR Headquarters in 1907 recognized a problem with the DAR application.
I believe you, Richard to be a competent researcher, which is why I fail to understand why you failed to recognize that there are no clues in either the affidavits or the DAR applications regarding the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen’s past, progenitor’s and localities which makes, to me, your rejection of the truths contained in the affidavits difficult to understand.If the affidavits had referred to a Cornelius Van Sicklen, I could understand your reluctance to accept them as error free because of whom you and Van Curen have determined to be the wife of Cornelius Van Sicklen. Such is not the case, the affidavits refer to Cornelius Van Siclen, a man whose background we don’t have a clue to knowing.
Bottom line….you have nothing on which to base your speculations that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen had to be a descendent of Ferdenandus Van Sycklin. Consequently, you have no valid reason to allege that the affidavits contain errors. Your inability to discover the Van Siclen described in the affidavits means only that you have searched in the wrong places and the wrong people. It does not mean that the deponents lied, made a mistake or were senile or careless.