My apologies to anyone who has been following this exchange.While most people engaged in genealogy study understand what I have been saying, Eddy is one of those rare types incapable of comprehending even simple concepts.I am certain by now that you have all figured out that Eddy is an infant in the world of genealogy, and as such requires that someone hold his hand, lead him around and attempt to teach him the ways of the world...not just once or twice, but dozens of times.He is a very slow learner.I will try once again to draw him a picture, but don't hold your breath.Not much penetrates his narrow mind.Be patient...While only a fraction of the total proof, the list of evidence is a long one, so it will take some space.I know in my heart, that after reading the line of evidence, there will be only one person left in the world who believes in the Violet Voorhees DAR fiction....and his name is Eddy Gusman.
We all know that it takes a large collection of evidence to essentially prove a lineage.For whatever reason, Eddy seems only able to consider one piece at a time, unfortunately, and cannot visualize how a collection of pieces tie things together.Take for example his fixation on a "birth record" for a woman whose name is spelled exactly "HANNAH LOSSING".Of course, everyone here has figured out that Annetje "LASSON", daughter of Simeon, baptised in 1774 is the person referred to.Collection of evidence.We know from church records that the daughter of Simeon Lasson and Margriet Van Keuren, Annetje, was born and baptised in 1774.We know from Church and land records that Simeon Lasson was also recorded as Simeon Lassing, Simeon Lassen(original spelling), Simeon Latson, Simeon Lauson, and Simeon Lawson.We know from land records(probate records of Willem's estate) that Hannah Lawson was the granddaughter of Willem Lawson, and that she was married to Cornelius Van Sicklen of Fishkill.(They sold said land before moving to Canada).We know that Willem Lawson received his land grant - the same land passed to Hannah Lawson - under the name Willem Lassen.We know that Willem Lassen and Mary Schouten were the parents of a son, Simeon(Apr 20, 1734, New Hamburgh, NY).We know that Simeon Lawson and Simeon Lassen are the same, as he is also named in Willem's estate.We know that Willem's son Simeon married Margriet Van Keuren, because of 1. Baptism of daughter Marya named for Simeon's mother(Oct 29, 1757, Loonenburgh Zion Lutheran), and 2. Baptism of son Willem named for Simeon's father(Jun 2, 1764, Highlands).So, we have Willem to Simeon to Annetje, plus husband Cornelius Van Sicklen.Now, Cornelius married to Annetje is established as son of Ferdinand Van Sicklen and Elizabeth Brower(Fishkill marriage and New Hackensack baptism, son Ferdinand, Oct 21, 1798).It is recorded in Dutchess county that Cornelius Van Sicklen, wife Hannah Lawson, and 5 other families - including cousin Matthew P Lawson - departed for Canada after the sale of the Dutchess County land in 1802.In Brighton Ontario Canada there is a Cemetery knwon as the "VAN SICKLEN CEMETERY"(exact spelling on the gate), located on lot B28, Brighton...a parcel of land once owned by a Matthew Lawson.In this cemetery, there is a tombstone for a "CORNELIUS VAN SICLEN"(exact spelling on stone), whose birth information taken from the stone is an EXACT MATCH to Cornelius Van Sicklen, son of Ferdinand, born Dutchess County.Next to him is wife Hannah.Next to them is a Ferdinand "VAN SICKLIN", their son, whose birth information taken from his stone is a dead match to the birth information for Ferdinand Van Sicklen, son of Cornelius Van Sicklen and Annetje Lawson in New Hackensack.From 1806 to 1850, this same Cornelius Van Siclen of the cemetery was also recorded(Tax, census, etc) as Cornelius Van Sicklen, and Cornelius Van SIcklin.The above collection of evidence clearly establishes that Cornelius Van Sicklen of Fishkill and Cornelius Van Siclen of Brighton are the same person.All that we have left is to connect Maria.First, let us consider how many Cornelius Van Sicklens there were in Fishkill in 1801.Of course, there was one.Son of Ferdinand.More importantly, records show that there were only 3 Cornelius Van Sicklens in all of Dutchess County in 1801 - Cornelius Sr married to Catharine Johnson(remember the affadavits...this is the couple claimed to be Maria's parents, only they are way too old to have any children in 1801), Cornelius Jr married to Sarah Van Wyck(also denoted as Cornelius "C" Van Sicklen, as he was son of Cornelius Sr), and Cornelius married to Annetje Lawson(also noted as Cornelius "F" Van Sicklen, as he was son of Ferdinand)Next, we already know that Cornelius Van Sicklen, son of Ferdinand, married Annetje Lawson.We also know that Annetje was also known as "HANNAH", a common nickname in America for the Dutch name Annetje.So we have Cornelius "F" Van Sicklen married to Annetje "Hannah" Lawson.Now let us turn to the 18 Oct, 1801 baptism(noted as born "exactly" Sep 15, 1801) of Maria Van Sicklen, d.o. Cornelius "F" V Sicklen(exact spelling in record) and Hannah "LOSSING".The "F" in Cornelius' name in this record certainly suggests he is likely to be son of Ferdinand...which would make his wife Hannah Lawson.Certainly a strong case for Hannah Lossing and Hannah Lawson to be the same person.The obviously near identical soundex of the names "LOSSING" and "LAWSON" further supports that.The lack of another Cornelius Van Sicklen that could possibly be a husband of a different Hannah whose name was just coincidentally similar, also supports the 2 Hannahs being just one person.The fact that the exact name "HANNAH LOSSING" only appears once in all the church books of Dutchess County - in Maria's baptism - and that "HANNAH LAWSON" is married to the same man she is further supports the contention that they are the same woman.The fact that the "LOSSING" name is very infrequently found in the various church records, and that using spouse names for comparison, nearly all persons recorded as "LOSSING" are also found recorded as "LASSEN", "LATSON", "LASSING", "LAUSON", "LOSSON", or "LAWSON" certainly suggests they are the same family.With all of the information detailed above, we can absolutely conclude that Annetje "HANNAH" Lawson married to Cornelius Van Sicklen at Fishkill, Hannah Lossing married to Cornelius Van Sicklen of Fishkill, and Hannah Lawson married to Cornelius Van Siclen of Brighton are all one person.This line of evidence brings Maria, daughter of Cornelius and Hannah, born Sep 15, 1801, to Canada.Now compare that birth date to the birth date for Maria taken from the Eastling bible - Sep 15, 1801...another dead match.Now compare the death date for Cornelius of Brighton to the death date for Maria's father from the Eastling Bible - Mar 19, 1850 to Mar (unreadable), 1850...another match.Now consider a very important name - Ferdinand.Cornelius of Brighton, father of Maria born Fishkill Sep 15, 1801,had a son named Ferdinand and a father named Ferdinand(Maria's grandfather).Maria, also born Sep 15, 1801, wife of Luther Eastling, had a son named Ferdinand(one of the deponents in the controversial DAR case).Certainly suggests a connection.When Luther Eastling applied for his Crown Land Grant(payment for service to England in the War of 1812), where did he select that land?In the same plat as Cornelius Van Siclen of Brighton.Why would he do that, if he weren't related?Again, certainly suggests a connection.Every single piece of real evidence serves to identify Cornelius Van Siclen and Hannah Lawson of Brighton as Maria Van Siclen Eastling's parents.Now let us consider the complete and total collection of real evidence Eddy has gathered to support the claims made in the DAR application(including the affadavits) that Catharine Johnson is Maria's mother and that Maria's father served in the Revolution, and that the family lived in Quebec Canada.I will list this collection between the following asterisks:
No, there is no error here.There is nothing between the asterisks, because there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that those claims could be real.There is no Cornelius found in any Quebec records that could be Maria's father...not tax records, not census records, not church records, not cemetery records...nothing.There is no record of a marriage between a Cornelius VS to a Catharine Johnson other than the 1771 marriage between Cornelius and Catharine who lived and died in Rumbout, Dutchess County New York...and they can be proven to NOT be Maria's parents.Despite extensive Rev war records available for virtually everyone who ever served, there is absolutely no record of a Cornelius VS who could be Maria's father.There were Corneliuses who served, but all have been accounted for, and none of them moved to Canada.Everyone reading this is free to make their own choice.Do you choose to follow a detailed line of evidence that clearly and concisely identifies Maria's true lineage, or do you choose to believe in a DAR application that contains numerous proven errors and has absolutely no supporting evidence.Or to put it another way....are you like me, wanting to identify to real ancestors, or are you like Eddy, preferring to identify to fiction and family folklore.
Eddy believes that by placing the self imposed requirement that a birth record for a "HANNAH LOSSING" spelled exactly, must be provided before any other records can be considered that he has somehow made all the evidence irrelevant.He believes us all to be too stupid to see the logic of the collection of eveidence, and that by distracting us from the real proof, he can continue to sell his fiction.
This is geanealogy.Research and records provide the foundation.Affadavits are worthless pieces of paper when 1. they are shown by REAL evidence to contain errors, and 2. No REAL evidence can be found to support claims made in the affadavits.Your ancestors are who they are.Affadavits do not change your real ancestry.The records clearly identify the lineage.Violet Voorhees made a mistake claiming that Cornelius Van Sicklen and Catharine Johnson married in 1771 were Maria's parents.I can prove that was an error.I can also prove that the military citation Violet used as the service record for Maria's father can NOT possibly be for Maria's Father.Two proovable errors.To extend that, I say, logically, that the claims in the affadavits that Catharine Johnson was Maria's mother and that Maria's father served in the Revolution are nothing more than repeating Violet's errors.Everyone is now looking to you Eddy....to provide some REAL evidence that those claims could possibly be true.YOU MUST PROVIDE DOCUMENTS FROM CANADA, NEW YORK, OR REVOLUTIONARY WAR SERVICE TO ESTABLISH THAT EITHER OF THOSE CLAIMS COULD BE TRUE.In the absence of any corroborating evidence outside those affadavits and DAR application, which are already known to contain false information, your case is lost.The large body of evidence will soon sway all Eastling descendants to the true lineage, through Cornelius Van Siclen and Hannah Lawson of Brighton Ontario.
I suspect that Eddy will continue to pursue the sale of this fiction until he successfully has Violet's DAR membership revoked.That is certainly not what I want, but if pressed to prove my research, it will be the end result.While Violet has a legitimate connection to the DAR...Cornelius Van Sicklen married to Catharine Johnson did serve, and he was Maria's great grandfather.....she, unfortunately, is not alive to reapply using her valid line.So....While Eddy has no chance of winning a case for his fantasy ancestors, Violet's DAR membership is in Eddy's hands.It's your move Eddy....provide us with real records to prove your claims, or your credibilty is forever lost.The time for dodging the truth is over.