Posted by: Richard Alan McCool (ID *****7472) Date: November 23, 2002 at 06:57:49
In Reply to: Re: Van Siclen/Van Sicklen Controversy revisited” by Ed Gusmanof 954
Richard – “Since you are unable to determine the lineage, you might do well to listen to those who have.
Gusman – Would it not have been just as easy to tell us how you determined that affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen descended from the Van Sycklin lineage. Why do avoid admitting that you don’t have a clue and you got him there by unmitigated guessing.?Stating – “you might do well to listen to those who have” says exactly zilch about how you made the linkage. Why the secret?
Pray tell me - who out of your correspondents was it that determined the linkage of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen with the Van Sycklin line? – while your doing that – tell me how the omniscient individual, who did the magic act to which you refer, was able to determine the ancestors of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen from the affidavits when the only clue to his background was the testimony which stated that he was a revolutionary veteran – testimony that both yourself and Van Curen reject as true.
I asked you, in my previous posting, what should have been a simple straight forward easy to answer question - HOW DID YOU AND VAN SICLEN DETERMINE THAT THE AFFIDAVIT CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN IS A DESCENDENT OF THE FERDENANDUS VAN SYCKLIN LINE? You responded with – “Since you are unable to determine the lineage, you might do well to listen to those who have.” What kind of an answer is that?
You and Van Curen have no documentation on which to base the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen’s connection with any lineage. If you do have additional documentation, do you have a problem with sharing it? Your answer tells us nothing. Merely describe the source or provide the criteria that you applied to reach your decision about why you believe that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen is a descendent of the Van Sycklin line. Referencing the Van Siclen name by itself is insufficient evidence for a connection. There has to be more than the Van Siclen name – why? – because the Van Siclen name could have been inherited from any lineage or created with the intent of concealing a birth surname. So if your response is “the name Van Siclen” that in it self does not create a linkage with the descendents of Van Sycklin any more than it creates a linkage with the Mohawk Valley Van Sickles.
The question is simple, but like every other time I have asked for conclusive evidence of the allegations each of you have made, you ignore the request and dance around the subject by introducing new rationalizations and allegations. Either be honest enough to tell me that you merely allege a not provable linkage or describe the sources you used to develop the linkage with the Van Sycklin descendants.
There may be others on this Van Sickle forum who have descended from other than the Van Sycklin lineage and who would like to know if the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen was linked to their lineage. There is nothing in the affidavits and DAR application, which would prevent a linkage to any lineage in lieu of the Van Sycklin line and there is nothing that would lead one to an EXCLUSIVE linkage with the Van Sycklin line.
It is obvious from your past postings that the appearance of the Van Sicklen name in the Eastling affidavits caught you on your blind side –you thought you knew all there was to know about antecedents of your personal ancestral Van Siclen lineage and suddenly the affidavits show up and they blew you away. So now you attempt to conceal your faux pas confusion by attempting to meld the affidavit Cornelius into the Van Sycklin lineage and like Van Curen you attempt to do so without the documented evidence which would conclusively prove a connection between the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and the Van Sycklin line.
Just this once ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTION – WHAT CRITERIA IN THE AFFIDAVITS AND DAR APPLICATION DID YOU APPLY IN ORDER TO CONVINCE YOURSELF THAT YOUR ARE JUSTIFIED IN LINKING THE AFFIDAVIT CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN TO THE FERDENANDUS VAN SYCKLIN DESCENDENT TREE.
During the two years that I have had the affidavits and DAR application I have not been able to discern a clue therein that would conclusively and EXCLUSIVELY link the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen to any lineage. It is true that the Van Siclen name is available but there are no clues, which point at any lineage that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen name descended from or in what locality in North America or even Holland the affidavit Cornelius ancestors lived when he was born.
For all the good the available documents in my possession do about defining a lineage for the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen, he could have been hatched from a Van Siclen ostrich egg.
On the other hand perhaps he created the alias Van Siclen to escape detection by the British for treason or a murder, deserting a family or whatever. Perhaps he and or his father are people who simply fell through the historical cracks of recorded births and baptisms and no records will ever be discovered for his antecedents because no records exist beyond the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen.
The point is Richard, that there is nothing in the affidavits or DAR application that would to point at a conclusive linkage with any lineage. Do not be so eager to create a linkage without CONCLUSIVE evidence that such a linkage ever existed.
Which is the reason why, although I have an abiding interest in knowing the origins of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen, I have made no serious effort to create what could in all likely hood could end up being an unintentionalfraudulent linkage to the incorrect lineage. Similar in nature to that which you wrote about when you said – “Teunis G. Bergen was the source used by J. Waddel VS for that rendition of the Brooklyn VSs that is so flawed concerning our shared branch of this family.” And you then wrote – “…following Bergen, screw-up on the VS-Linington marriage…”
Your problem Richard is that your ego is so large that you can’t bring yourself to admit that you have no clues which would link the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen with the Ferdnandus Van Sycklin descendents - because there are no clues in the current available documentation to lead you there.
Your creation of a heritage for the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen ancestry has been based on your personal speculation about his connection with the Van Sycklin lineage. Your speculation and resulting linkage with the Van Sycklin line is not supported by factual conclusive documentary evidence – if it was you would provide the supporting evidence and crow a cockle doodle do about my mistake.
The existing documentation provides you with no beginning point to explore, beyond knowing that the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen was born and probably not hatched from an egg. Born to who, where and when you do not know.
The linkage you have made between the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and the Van Sycklin lineage is pure unequivocal guesswork because there is no data in the affidavits telling you if he descended from the Ferdenandus Van Sycklin line, the Mohawak Valley Van Sickles or other deriviations of the name scattered in Canada, the Colonies or Holland. You don’t know if he changed his name from whatever to Van Siclen before marrying or serving in the revolution. About the background and ancestry of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen there is much to be learned but until currently not available evidence providing a starting point appears there is currently nothing known about the man’s ancestry. The connection you allege to exist is based on your speculation – nothing more.
You say on the one hand that the affidavits are riddled with errors, while on the other hand you blindly accept the name of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen in order to link him to the Van Sycklin line. You can’t have it both ways – you can’t rationalize the rejection of Catherine Johnson as the wife of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and at the same time rationalize a link between the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and the Van Sycklin line. The affidavit Cornelius and Catherine go together like sweet on sugar.
The lack of thoroughness in your research techniques, as it relates to affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen, is best illustrated by an earlier statement of yours wherein you said – “the DAR home office DID NOT approve (Violettas) application for membership”. An unfortunate conclusion and choice of words by yourself, because I then wrote you the date the application was approved by the DAR Headquarters General Secretary and offered to send as an attachment a copy of the approval page of the application.
Those few words of yours are a graphic illustration of your ongoing lack of research into the affidavits, the DAR application and the heritage of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. A researcher not riding as high on his ego train as you do would, prior to making an allegation that DAR Headquarters had not approved an application, have first verified that the application had in fact not been approved – a simple matter – ask for a copy of the DAR approval signatures – which I and Van Curen hold.
I think it is a genuine tragedy that a person such as yourself, who I am convinced has the talent and expertise to ferret out the background of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen before linking him to any lineage, permitted himself to be led down the yellow brick road.
Richard – “It is unfortunate that you cannot quite grasp the insignificance of the surname spelling nor that the well presented case of Doug Van Curen has no resonance for you.”
Gusman – “Well presented you say? Follow this: He alleges a marriage between a Maria Van Sicklen and Luther C. Eastling for which he had no documentation to prove. Later he admitted on this forum that he had nothing that would prove his allegations of such a marriage. He changes Maria’s marriage date from 1814 to 1824. He shows only seven children born to Maria when Maria’s bible entry records 10 and we now have the first names of 9 of those children. He rejects Catherine Johnson as the wife of Cornelius Van Siclen, accusing the deponents of conspiring to create the name Catherine Johnson, for the singular purposes of gaining Violetta admittance to the DAR. He researches a Van Siclen lineage then attaches it to the Eastling lineage with the marriage of a Maria Van Sicklen to Luther C. Eastling. Later he is told by someone that there is a Van Siclen burined in Brighton Ontario Canada. He next refutes his earlier allegations that the Van Siclen name should have been spelled Van Sicklen and then states that the Van Siclen name in the affidavits is really spelled correctly, Maria Van Siclen is the daughter of Cornelius Van Siclen and it is Maria Van Siclen, not Maria Van Sicklen who married Luther C. Eastling. The wife of the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen is Annetje/Hannah Lawson. He searches for and finds a Maria born the same date as Maria Van Siclen(in the affidavits) but born to a birth mother named Hannah Lossing.Using aka’s he then converts Hannah Lossing through three surname changes beginning with her birth name of Lossing then with aka to either Lassing or Lasen (I forget which) then again using aka changes her to Lawson and says that Lawson is the wife of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen and mother of Maria Van Siclen. At one point in time he rejected the affidavits and Bible transcript in their entirety. I will no longer correspond with Van Curen but at my last encounter he agreed that parts of the affidavits are true and other parts are in error – I forget which is which and he is no longer a factor.
Richard you are entitled to believe what you will. With the single exception of the Brighton cemetery Van Siclen marker, he has yet to present a single shred of evidence that can prove there is a single mistake in the affidavits. And he uses the birth date 1775 to prove that the Brighton Cemetery Cornelius Van Siclen.is the Cornelius Van Siclen in the affidavits because he rejects the veracity about the revolutionary service for the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. Currently he has failed to present a shred of evidence whidh will support a single allegation he has made including his allegation that the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen born 1775 (married to Annetje/Hannah Lawson) is the same person as the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen born a calculated date between 1750-1760 and married to a first wife named Catherine Johnson. He has presented no case/evidence, which would link the daughter Maria of the Brighton Cemetery Van Siclen to the daughter Maria of the affidavit Van Siclen. He has presented no evidence which proves that Catherine Johnson is not the first wife of the affidavit Van Siclen. While he continues to allege the two Cornelius Van Siclen’s are one and the same person the evidence in the affidavits proves conclusively that they are not one and the same man.
Now if he could produce so much as a single shred of evidence, which would conclusively support his allegations that any part of the affidavits or Bible transcript are in error, I could take his allegations seriously and investigate his alleged source evidence. Until that time there is no reason to believe anything he has created to link the Eastlings and the Van Sicklen lineages.
You refer to the “insignificance of the surname spelling”. Explain how if it had not been for my on going insistence that the affidavit Van Siclen name was the only correct and acceptable spelling, the Cornelius Van Siclen discovered in the Brighton Cemetery would have been found. Van Curen kept alleging that there were no Van Siclen’s buried throughout Canada and lo some interested person finds, unknown to Van Curen,a Van Siclen buried in Brighton, Canada.Perhaps a stone for the Van Siclen buried in Quebec will someday be discovered. Perhaps not – the Quebec Van Siclen may have been buried under wooden marker like three of my aunts were, markers which have long ago disappeared
Then too about accuracy with spelling of names you wrote – “John Linington, father of Samuel Linnington and John Linington (brothers, despite how each chose to spell their surnames). “ What if I were to research a genealogy using the spellingJohn Linnington and Samuel Linington would I be able to create an accurate genealogy for each man using my illustrated and incorrect spelling for John and Samuel? Would the mixed up bloodlines make a difference to their descendants? If accuracy of spelling is so unimportant to you why your concern with the surname spelling ofJohn and Samuel.
Richard – “In any event, if you ever come around to exploring your actual roots, outside of the Violetta Voorhees mistakes, the previous thread has nearly all you will need to have a good leg-up on that lineage.”
Gusman – The errors made by Violetta on her DAR application are not related in any manner to the affidavits. It was the affidavits that compensated for and corrected the errors in the DAR application. Beyond turning over the Eastling Bible so that the Notary could transcribe the entries therein, Violetta had nothing to do with the creation of the Fanny and Ferdinand affidavits.
You can’t seem to get it into your head that Violetta’s application mistakes made eight months prior to the creation of the affidavits, although responsible for the later creation of the affidavits, had nothing to do with the contents of the affidavits. Content was the sworn testimony of the deponents and the Bible transcript. Until such a time as you can provide conclusive evidence which will connect the affidavit Van Siclen to the Van Sycklin lineage, you have no conclusive linkage.What you have to support your alleged connection is speculation only.
Richard – “Meanwhile, I hope that your Van Siclen-Eastling kin will have moved past your particular convolutions and are enjoying the ancestry ably discerned by Doug.”
Gusman – There is a provable Van Siclen-Eastling connectionas testified to in the Eastling affidavits.
There is no provable link by Van Curen or yourself between the Van Siclen and Eastling lineage’s No provable link has been presented by Richard between the affidavit Van Siclen and the descendents of the Van Sycklin line.
It matters not how accurate the Van Sicklen genealogy is when viewed by itself – I neither know or care – what matters is that no provable link has been made by either Van Curen or Richard McCool between the Eastling and Van Sicklen lineages.
I note that you have ceased to write that Catherine Johnson is the SECOND wife of the affidavit Cornelius Van Siclen. Did my 3rd grade arithmetic lesson in my previous post, whereby I showed you that a Cornelius Van Siclen born in 1726 (who had married a second wife named Catherine Johnson), would in 1850 have been 124 years old , have an impact? I appear to have “gotten” through to you. about the Catherine Johnson in the affidavits being a FIRST wife as testified by Fanny.
CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN BORN 1750-1760 – MARRIED TOCATHERINE JOHNSON – FIRST WIFE – MARRIED SECOND TIME BUT SECOND WIFE’S NAME NOT KNOWN - DIED AND BURIED IN QUEBEC, CANADA MARCH 1850, POSSIBLE IN A LOCALITY NAMED BACAUTA, QUEBEC, CANADA BUT MOST LIKELY THE SPELLING IS WRONG, COULD BE BARRAUTA, QUEBEC, CANADA,BUT NOT CERTAIN ENLISTED COLONIAL ARMY FROM NEW YORK STATE - SERVED IN THE COLONIAL ARMY UNDER GEORGE WASHINGTON DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR, RECORDS OF SERVICE HAVE BEEN LOST, POSSIBLY DESTROYED IN EARLY RECORDED FIRES.IN WHICH MANY REVOLUTIONARY RECORDS ARE KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN DESTROYED.
The above description of the WANTEDCornelius Van Siclen is taken from affidavits written by Violetta Voorhees, Fanny Eastling Irons and Ferdinand Eastling. Date of death is taken from a Bible transcript originally written by Maria Van Siclen Eastling about 1850.
Do not confuse the above Cornelius Van Siclen married to Catherine Johnson and dying in Quebec Canada with the Cornelius Van Siclen below married to Annetje/Hannah Lawson and died in Brighton Ontario Canada.
CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN BORN 1775 – MARRIED ANNETJE/HANNAH LAWSON – FIRST WIFE – NOT KNOWN IF MARRIED A SECOND TIME. – DIED AND BURIED IN BRIGHTON, ONTARIO, CANADA MARCH 1850 – DID NOT SERVE DURING REVOLUTIONARY WAR
The description of the NOT WANTED Cornelius Van Siclen is taken from the Van Sicklen genealogy.
Two researchers have alleged that these two Cornelius Van Siclens are one and the same person. They have no conclusive documented evidence, which conclusively proves their allegations.