Let the truth be known:
Ed claims that I have provided no documentation with regard to Maria's lineage.That is, of course, incorrect.Anyone who has been following the controversey knows Eddy's statement to be false.This forum is filled with references to records proving Maria's lineage.I will list many of them below.While Maria Van Siclen Eastling's lineage has been well documented and proven for @ 2 years now, Ed Gusman still insists on selling his flawed logic.For the benefit of all interested parties, it is time to address this backwards thinking.In his last post, Ed states:
"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"
Ed believes that a DAR application is "THE" proof, and that one must use said application as a starting point to identify a person's lineage.Flawed Logic.Why?Because Violet Voorhees DAR application, like so many others, is so severely flawed that using it as a starting point results in a dead end that cannot be resolved.Why?Because the people identified in the DAR application as Maria's parents are clearly "NOT" her parents.The "CLUE" Ed speaks of is one of the major obstacles, since Maria's father did "NOT" serve in the Revolution.His father and grandfather did, and this fact somehow got confused by the time of the 1907 application date.The DAR application itself does not constitute proof of anything.In fact, the contents of the application, including the affadavits, are absent of proof and therefore must be "PROVEN".
Instead of trying to work backwards from a piece of unproven family folklore, the proper way to establish a line is to use records of the known ancestors daily lives to establish a link to the ancestral line.In this respect the Bible entries included in the DAR application(the only "REAL" evidence found in the DAR application)provide us with enough information to clearly identify Cornelius Van Siclen and Hannah Lawson of Brighton, Ontario, Canada as the "REAL" parents of Maria Van Siclen Eastling.Using all possible spelling variations - Van Sicklen, Van Siclen, Van Sickle, etc - any intelligent person would readily recognize that the odds of 2 Maria's being born on "EXACTLY" Sep 15, 1801 is very nearly impossible.This alone would be enough to convince a reasonable person of Maria's true parentage, but Ed would have us believe it is simply a coincidence.I challenge Ed to provide a verifiable example where this type of "coincidence" ever happened in any any family, at any time, in the history of the world.This date match alone is adequate to prove Maria's parentage, but we are not done yet with the proof.Add to this, if it were 2 different Marias, that one would have a brother named Ferdinand and the other would have a son named Ferdinand.Another coincidence.The odds that 2 different Cornelius Van Siclens died in Canada in March of 1850 are likewise nearly impossible(especially considering Ed cannot even find evidence that there was a 2nd Cornelius in Canada, anywhere)...yet another coincidence that Ed insists happened.The odds that Luther Eastling would have married a daughter of one Cornelius Van Siclen and then for no apparent reason applied for a Crown Land Grant in the same Platt near a totally unrelated Cornelius Van Siclen is also nearly impossible...still another coincidence that must have happened, for the DAR claims to be true.Primary source documents relating to the family of Cornelius Van Sic(k)len and wife Hannah Lawson(Annetje Lassen, Hannah Lossing, etc), who once lived at Fishkill New York before moving to Brighton, Canada, clearly PROVE them to be Maria Van Siclen Eastling's "REAL" parents, despite Ed's claims that all the "matches" are simply coincidence.
Now let's consider all of the documents Ed has submitted to prove that the claims made in the DAR application/affadavits are true.Oops...nothing to consider here.There are "ABSOLUTELY NO" records/documents/papers of any kind from the 1700s or 1800s showing that A. Maria's father served in the Revolution or B. that Maria's mother was Catharine Johnson.Both of those claims are in error...THEY ARE FALSE..., as evidenced by the fact that A. Violet cited a Revolutionary War record for a Cornelius that has been "PROVEN" to "NOT" be Maria's father, and B. Violet cited a marriage record for 2 people(Cornelius Van Sicklen and Catharine Johnson) who have been proven to "NOT" be Maria's parents.These 2 key errors in the DAR application make it necessary to verify and prove "ALL" claims made in any of the contents of the DAR application, including the affadavits.Ed cannot even find a record of any kind that would suggest that a second Cornelius ever lived in Canada in this time period...anywhere in Canada.
Now it is time to clearly identify the "TRUE" and "PROVEN" lineage of Maria Van Siclen Eastling:
1: Ferdinandus Van Sycklin arrived in New York in 1652, as an indentured servant.After serving his time, he settled at Graves End, Long Island and married Eva Antonis van Salee in 1660.They had 8 known children, including Reynier, born at Long Island in 1661.
2: Reynier, born 1661, married Jannetje Van Hooren at New York City, Mar 26, 1687. They had at least 4 children, including a Ferdinand, born Long Island in 1688.
3: Ferdinand, born 1687, married Mary Laan in 1708.They had 9 children, including Cornelius born Jan 24, 1726 at Graves End.
4: Cornelius, born 1726, married Femmentje Van Derveer, Sep 11, 1751, Middlesex, New Jersey.They had six chilren, Including Ferdinand born May 7, 1753 at Gravesend.After Femmentje died in 1770, Cornelius married Catharine Johnson on Jun 11, 1771.This record was cited in the DAR application as the parents of Maria VS Eastling who was born Sep 15, 1801...an obvious error on Violet Voorhees part.
5: Ferdinand, b. 1753, m. Elizabeth Brower Apr 11, 1773 in Poughkeepsie.They had 8 children, including Cornelius born Sep 4, 1775.
6: Cornelius, b. 1775, m. Annetje Lawson Jul 8, 1795, Fishkill, New York.They had 7 children, including Maria b. Sep 15, 1801, Fishkill, New York.This is the point that Ed goes into his "exact spelling" tyrade.He would have us believe that Cornelius Van Sicklen married to Annetje Lawson in Fishkill in 1795; Cornelius Van Sicklen and Hannah Lossing parents of Maria born Fishkill Sep 15, 1801, and baptised at the Fishkill DRC; and Cornelius Van Siclen and Hannah Lawson buried in Brighton in 1850(who just happened to have the exact same birth dates as the couple from Fishkill and are buried with a son Ferdinand, who also has the exact same birthdate as the Fishkill couple's son Ferdinand) are, in fact, 3 distinctly different couples.His logic?The names in the various records aren't spelled "EXACTLY" alike, therefore they must be different people.It is a simple matter to use the records to establish that these people are the same, despite minor spelling variations in the records, but Ed refuses to consider the possibility.Why?Because Ed would rather deceive and mislead people than admit that he made a mistake in blindly believing the contents of an unsubstantiated/unproven DAR file.Lands purchased by Willem Lassen in Dutchess County were eventually sold by his grandchildren in 1803, prior to their making the trip Brighton.Willem Lassen had also been identified in various records of Dutchess County as Willem Lassing, Willem Lossing, and William Lawson.In 1801, Matthew P Lasson and Hannah Lasson both baptised children at Fishkill.In 1803, Matthew P Lawson and Hannah Lawson, wife of Cornelius Van Sicklen, sold the inherited land once belonging to Willem Lassen.Cornelius Van Siclen(exact spelling) of Brighton(lot B29) and his wife, Hannah Lawson, are buried in the Van Sicklen(exact spelling) Cemetery of Brighton Ontario, lot B28, next to son Ferdinand Van Sicklin(exact spelling).Who was the original owner of lot B28?Matthew P Lawson.So much for Ed's rediculous claim that I have no documentation to prove this line.Said claim is nothing more than Eddy's desperate attempt to cover the fact that he, himself, has no evidence to support his blind faith in Violet Voorhees DAR application.The DAR application and the supporting affadavits are purely and simply "FICTION", proven beyond any reasonable doubt.Time to let it go Eddy.The fantasy is dead.
Records used to prove the true line of Maria VS Eastling, through Cornelius and Hannah of Brighton:
Flatlands, Graves End, Poughkeepsie, Fishkill, Hopewell, New Hackensack, Middlesex, and NYC Dutch Reformed Church Records.
Ameliasburgh, Ontario Church records.
Gravesend and Dutchess County Land records.Brighton, Ontario Land Records.Crown Service Records for Luther Eastling and Ferdinand Van Sicklen of Brighton, Ontario
Census records for Canada
Tax records and probate records for Dutchess County New York
Revolutionary War records for the State of New York.
Marriages licenses issued for the state of New York
As a final note:Eddy expects everyone to simply take his word for everything he says, without providing any evidence to suppport his position.I, on the other hand, do not wish anyone to take my word for anything.Use the references and find the records yourself.Follow the clear and concise paper trail.If you find yourself missing a piece, I will be happy to provide a more concise reference.Once you do the actual research, you will recognize the DAR Application/affadavits as the fiction that they are, and begin researching the REAL family...the one that actually did exist and is easily provable.
Once again....Family Folklore, related from faded memory and aided by shoddy research errors, is a poor substitute for "REAL" primary source documents.Fiction "sworn under oath", is still fiction.The "oath" does not magically make the stories true.Our prisons are full of people who swore "under oath" that they were innocent.End of story.