Nov. 6 2002 to Richard & Doug – Catherine Johnson Versus Annetje/Hannah Lawson
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
The alleged deponent conspiracy theory and why there never was a conspiracy.
The Violetta DAR application contains only three entries that can be said to be correct. The signature of the notary, Violetta’s full name, the approval signatures and dates and the name Catherine Johnson.Little to nothing else is correct on her application.
Violetta’s major faux pas was her entry of the name Cornelius Van Sickle as her Revolutionary Veteran. Note that she spelled the name in her application as Van Sickle. Consequently, all of her research into the background of her veteran was wrong. Violetta had not discussed with either deponent, notably her mother, Fanny Violetta’s intention to apply for membership in the DAR. That is known because if Violetta had discussed her DAR intentions with her mother Fanny, Fanny would have told her daughter the correct name of Violetta’s veteran. The correct name was Cornelius Van Siclen – note spelling is Van Siclen. Because Violetta entered Van Sickle I assume Violetta had not discussed DAR membership with her mother or aunts and uncles.
Fanny, not knowing the real name for her veteran was Van Siclen, and believing it be Van Sickle, entered the Van Sickle name, which appears to have been in vogue in 1906 among Violetta’s generation of descendents from Luther and Maria Van Siclen Eastling. Violetta was age 51, married with adult children when she applied for DAR membership.
About eight months after submitting her DAR application, the DAR notified Violetta that they required affidavits, which would support her submitted application entries. Neither I nor anyone knows today what problem the DAR discovered that made them request affidavits which would verify the data Violetta had entered in her DAR application.Evidently DAR Headquarters had discovered a problem of some type.
Fanny and Ferdinand, Violetta;s mother and Uncle, then wrote affidavits. What they wrote must have come as something like a shock to DAR Headquarters. What the deponents wrote is what gives the affidavits their veracity and creditability. Knowing from Violetta that she had entered the name Van Sickle and knowing the Van Sickle name to be incorrect, Fanny and Ferdinand wrote in their affidavits thatCornelius Van Siclen was the Revolutionary Veterans name.
The deponents Fanny and Ferdinand could have written that Cornelius Van Sickle was the veteran, thereby confirming the veteran’s name entered by Violetta and virtually guaranteeing Violetta’s member ship approval. Apparently the deponents sworn oath, integrity and honor was to themselves of more importance than Violetta’s DAR membership. At the time they entered the name Cornelius Van Siclen into their affidavits they knew the risk they were taking and that there was a probability that DAR Headquarters could reject Violatta’s membership on the basis of a previously submitted fraudulent membershipapplication. Fortunately common sense prevailed in DAR Headquarters and Violetta was granted her DAR membership approval.However, at the time the deponents were writing their affidavits they had no method of determining what the reaction would be in the Washington D.C. DAR Headquarters.
It must have been a surprise to those in DAR headquarters responsible for approving membership to read an application and affidavits, which show two different veteran’s names. I have nothing but admiration for the deponents who placed their integrity and sworn oath above their daughter and nieces interest in DAR membership by not succumbing to a virtually guaranteed membership for Violetta if they had entered Van Sickle into their affidavits.
The preceding is the reason I have not the slightest problem believing that every entry in the affidavits, including those made by Maria Van Siclen in the Bible transcript, are without errors of any type.