This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Stell, Roper, Critchlow, Crichlow Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1762.11/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Sarah "Sally" Giles (STELL) Roper CRTICHLOW can be found enumerated in the 1880 Census, age age 80, in District 7, Williamson County. The record shows her name as Sallie CRICHLOW. She is shown to be widowed and born in Virginia to parents each born in Virginia. Sallie's sons Joel ROPER, age 54, and Haywood ROPER,age 50, both single, are shown to be residing in Sallie's household. Each is also shown to be born in Virginia to parents each born in Virginia. Joel is erroneously Indexed as "Jack" in some Indices. This record is at Image 18 of 19 at the Ancestry.com presentation of Census data for this jurisdiction. See: "United States Census, 1880," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MDW2-4FT : accessed 26 Aug 2014), Sallie Crichlow, District 7, Williamson, Tennessee, United States; citing sheet 105B, NARA microfilm publication T9. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Goodwyn Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1937.6/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Another of the misleading "facts" about Charles ROPER posted by the ROPER Family History Fictionalists is the assertion that Charles ROPER is the "son" of a John ROPER, of Charles City County. This John ROPER is also usually given a fictitious date or year of birth to support the misleading conclusion that there is some actual basis for the fiction. This ascription is based upon an exceptionally tenuous and strained reading of an extant Inventory of a John ROPER dated 08 Nov 1759 which Inventory was recorded on 03 Sep 1766. While it is TRUE that a Charles ROPER is mentioned in this Inventory, it is completely FALSE that Charles ROPER was anywhere therein described as a "son" of this John ROPER. To the contrary, Charles ROPER is simply described as a co-executor of the Estate of the deceased John ROPER, together with Jean or Jane ROPER and David ROPER. NO RELATIONSHIP IS GIVEN. While this record is certainly consistent with the possibility that Charles ROPER is a son of John ROPER, it is also consistent with a variety of other possibilities. Charles ROPER could also have been this John ROPER's brother, nephew or cousin. For that matter, Charles ROPER could also have been John ROPER's FATHER since we have very little indication as to this John ROPER's actual age. The relationship of both Jean/Jane ROPER, as well as David ROPER is also UNCLEAR from the Will. It seems MOST LIKELY that Jean/Jane ROPER was this John ROPER's WIDOW, since it was generally somewhat uncommon to name a daughter as an executrix in those times, unless the daughter was well educated and an only child. Moreover, a daughter who had reached majority had usually been already married for one or more years and would likely to have appeared under a married name. It seems UNLIKELY that John ROPER would have named an unmarried sister or a sister-in-law as a co-executrix, more likely trusting his brother's to deal fairly with their sister. One other possibility would be that Jean/Jane ROPER could be a widowed mother of a younger John ROPER. Though perhaps more plausible than naming a sister, sister-in-law or unmarried daughter, this possibility suffers from the necessity of assuming that John ROPER had a surviving mother who was a widow and that John predeceased his mother. This construction also suffers from a couple of other practical considerations. To the extent that John ROPER trusted his sons, brothers, nephews or cousins, naming his mother would have been unnecessary and also somewhat unusual given the tendency to rely on males for business and legal matters. The same is actually true if David ROPER and Charles ROPER were John ROPER's SONS. It was far more common in those days to make express bequests by Will to include a life interest in some parcel of land in favor of the widow and some household furniture with the bulk of the estate and especially the remainder to pass to the sons. One of the greater perils to be protected against in probate was the remarriage of the wife and an estate coming under the control of the widow's subsequent husband and the children's step-father. For this reason, the choice of the widow as an executor was usually DISFAVORED in favor of another immediate relative or trusted friend. Upon remarriage, the widow would tend to come under control of her new husband and the children's step-father. When the children were adults, this was somewhat less problematic. The sons could be named directly, but naming the widow then still tended to be UNNECESSARY, EXCEPT in an instance where the decedant had remarried, as the sons could usually be trusted to take care of their own mother. There are two common instances where a decedent might name the widow as a co-executor. One is where the widow was a second (or subsequent wife) and naming the widow might be necessary to protect her and the interests of younger children against the interests of her older stepsons. In this case, naming a widow and one or more older sons might strike the appropriate balance. A second instance would be presented when the decendent left a widow and only minor children. In this instance, the care of both the widow and the orphaned children would be the primary concern of the decedent. In this instance, naming the widow would give her some direct control over the disposition of the estate, while naming brothers, uncles, or cousins would secure the estate against a grasping stepfather upon the widow's remarriage. * * * The Factionalists have done NO MEANINGFUL ANALYSIS WHATSOEVER as to the corrent meaning or interpretation of the Charles City County probate records. They simply CONLCUDE that Jean/Jane is the widow, which is probably not an altogether unreasonable assumption, though far from certain, and then also posit that both David ROPER and Charles ROPER are SONS of this John ROPER, which conclusion seems to be almost completely SPECIOUS. An examination of John ROPER's Inventory gives other unexamined and unanalyzed clues. This John ROPER is shown to have one slave, two horses, eleven head of cattle, one hog, twelve head of sheep, three feather beds, three tables, five chairs. The Inventory is interesting because it shows that this John ROPER had accumulated some material things during his lifetime. He has a reasonable and manageable herd of livestock. But he has ONLY ONE SLAVE. The 16 Jun 1714 Charles City County Patent to John ROPER was for 554 acres. Most of that plantation seems to have come down to David ROPER (b 13 Nov 1744 - Charles City, VA, d 16 Apr 1808 - Charles City, VA). David ROPER's father is identified in the family Bible of Rev. David ROPER as John ROPER (b 1709). David ROPER (b 13 Nov 1744 - Charles City, VA, d 16 Apr 1808 - Charles City, VA) would have been only AGE 15 at the date of the 08 Nov 1759 Inventory of John ROPER and therefore CANNOT reasonably have been the executor named David ROPER. Thus, we are immediately presented with a couple of pieces of dissonant information. First, we are presented with the possibility that the John ROPER who died leaving a widow was NOT the principal of the ROPER parcel patented in 1714. He MIGHT have been a DIFFERENT John ROPER, a son, nephew, uncle or cousin. Second, but more importantly, IF this John ROPER WAS the owner of the land patented in 1714, then the David ROPER named as his co-executor must NOT have been his SON, since the land came down to David ROPER (b 13 Nov 1744 - Charles City, VA, d 16 Apr 1808 - Charles City, VA), who would have been a MINOR in 1759. Thus, IF we accept arguendo that the John ROPER who died was the owner of the Chickahominy plantation, we must necessarily begin our inquiry with the assumption that the David ROPER named was NOT a son, but rather a brother, uncle, nephew or cousin of the decedant. But if David ROPER was merely another immediate or collateral relative OTHER THEN A SON, then WHY would we ASSUME that the Charles ROPER named was CLOSER in relation than David ROPER?? There is simply NO VALID BASIS to make such an assumption and more than a little reason to suspect otherwise. * * * Part of the reason that Charles ROPER has been given the rather specific date of birth of abt 1720 by the Fictionalists is in support of the specious conclusion that this Charles ROPER was a son of the John ROPER who is known to have died before the 08 Nov 1759 Inventory. Once one retreats from the ERRONEOUS ascription of false precision in Charles ROPER's year of birth and admits that Charles ROPER (b abt 1705-21), of Dinwiddie, was actually born within a wider range of plausible years, other constructions of the data become much more intutive. It is SOLELY because of the DECEPTION as to Charles ROPER's year of birth that other family historians are so easily misled by the Fictionalists. * * * I would submit that there are two other very reasonable and plausible constructions of the admittedly sparse Charles City County data that are each MORE LIKELY than the construction urged by the Fictionalists. First, John ROPER (d bef 08 Nov 1759 - Charles City County, VA) might have been the father of David ROPER (b 13 Nov 1744 - Charles City, VA, d 16 Apr 1808 - Charles City, VA), in which case he died leaving a somewhat younger widow and minor children. In this case, the David ROPER and Charles ROPER named as co-executors were probably trusted brothers, uncles, or cousins who were named to protect the interests of the minor children in case of the remarriage of Jean/Jane ROPER. Second, John ROPER (d bef 08 Nov 1759 - Charles City County, VA) might have been a much younger John ROPER who died as a young man, leaving an even younger widow and infant children. In this case, John ROPER (d bef 08 Nov 1759 - Charles City County, VA) might have been an older brother of David ROPER (b 13 Nov 1744 - Charles City, VA, d 16 Apr 1808 - Charles City, VA) who died before he came into his father's inheritance. In this case, the David and Charles ROPER could again be uncles, or cousins. The David ROPER named as executor would NOT have been a brother IF David ROPER (b 13 Nov 1744 - Charles City, VA, d 16 Apr 1808 - Charles City, VA) was this John ROPER's brother. * * * The trouble with this John ROPER being David ROPER's (b 13 Nov 1744 - Charles City, VA, d 16 Apr 1808 - Charles City, VA) father is the very small number of slaves. One slave simply wouldn't have been enough to cultivate and harvest a 554 acre plantation. The furniture also seems to be somewhat more consistent with a SMALLER family. Admittedly, in those days children and even adults often slept more than one to a bed. Even so, with three feather beds it is hard to see how this family had more than about five to seven members in the household. The number of chairs is similarly telling. Five chairs is hardly enough to seat more than five family members at meals. If there were more than five residing in this household, some must have been infants. Once again, one might ascribe this as an older "empty nest" couple with most of the children having departed, perhaps taking chairs with them as they formed new households. But I remain troubled by the single slave. To me, the John ROPER Inventory seems somewhat MORE consistent with a younger couple set up as a household within the previous few years with a single slave and a small parcel of land. The size of the herd of livestock is consistent with what a couple might have after five to ten years of marriage. The bottom line here though is that we are left to puzzle over VERY SPARSE DATA. Rather than urging a particualr conclusion, I am instead ONLY urging that the conclusion that (b abt 1705-21), of Dinwiddie, VA, is a SON of the John ROPER (d bef 08 Nov 1759 - Charles City County, VA) is simply NOT SUPPORTED by the available evidence. This is NOT to say that this possiblity is completely EXCLUDED by the evidence, but rather that this is neither CONCLUSIVE nor even the most likely construction. It is simply at best a SPECULATIVE ascription, but due to the misrepresentation of so much of the underlying factual data could be better described as a DISHONEST ascription. Any HONEST researcher would certainly REFRAIN from showing such an ascription absent a showing of valid supporting evidence. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Goodwyn Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1937.5/mb.ashx Message Board Post: One aspect of Charles ROPER's life has been repeatedly and consistently misrepresented by the ROPER family history Fictionalists. This is the date and year of Charles ROPER's birth. Ann GOODWYN's year of birth has been similarly misrepresented. If one examines various published accounts, whether in print or posted and distributed electronically, one finds it persistently represented that both Charles ROPER and Ann GOODWYN were each born about 1720. As will be further shown, while this date is NOT erroreous as to an order of magnitude, the description "abt 1720" implies a FALSE PRECISION which cannot be readily supported by extant data. The earliest mention of this Charles ROPER in ANY primary record identified to date is the mention in the Bristol Parish Register showing the birth of the eldest children, twins David and Laura or Laurell ROPER: David ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742 - Bristol Parish, VA) Larell ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742 - Bristol Parish, VA) This mention predates mentions in land records or court records by a couple of decades. Identification of Charles ROPER as the father of David ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742 - Bristol Parish, VA) in both the Bristol Parish record and the MOORE Family Bible would seem to suggest some upper bound to the year of Charles ROPER's birth. Since it was most common for young men of this era to marry after reaching majority (age 21), David ROPER's birth year would seem to implicitly support a reasonably strong inference that Charles ROPER was born BEFORE 1721 and a very strong inference and a VERY STRONG inference that Charles ROPER was born before about 1724. Even so, my criticism of the precise year 1720 as the year around which the estimates seem to be currently centered in NOT primarily predicated upon unease about the upper bound of the birth year. Rather, because young men sometimes defer marriage for some years after reaching majority, the given year 1720 suggests a very serious false precision about the lower bound of the year of birth. NOTHING about either the Bristol Parish Register record of the MOORE Family Bible supports any precision about the lower bound of Charles ROPER's year of birth, which might easily be years or decades earlier. Admittedly, with each year prior to about 1710, the likelihood that Charles ROPER was born earlier decreases as it is increasingly unlikely that Charles ROPER first married at an advanced age. What tends to contrain the lower bound of Charles ROPER's year of birth is his age of death about 1791. If Charles ROPER was born about 1720, he would have been about age 71 at death. While life expectancies in this period were not nearly as advanced as in modern times, it was certainly not unheard of for men to live into their late seventies or early eighties. Again, with each passing year of age, Charles ROPER's remaining life expectancy would have decreased. Thus, Charles ROPER's death in 1791 makes it MORE LIKELY that Charles ROPER was born in 1720 than in 1710. But stating that Charles ROPER was born in 1720 again implies a completely misplaced and false precision for which their is NO VALID SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Sir William ROPER lived to age 86 almost two centuries earlier and the number of men who lived well into their nineties in the 1700s is sufficiently smalll that I would NOT advocate an expected birth year range that exceeds age 90. For that matter an upper bound to the age range of age 85 to 86 would seem to be reasonably defensible. * A word of further explanation is also in order about both the PURPOSE and the SUGGESTED CONCLUSION of the FALSE PRECISION implied by the false representations of the Fictionalists. The more precise birth year of 1720 has been repeatedly used to support the ascription of Charles ROPER as the son of another John ROPER, of Charles City, VA, to whom various speculative birth dates are also ascribed. Thus, the year 1720 is NOT chosen as the year of birth because this year of birth is supported by actual evidence. Rather, this year is chosen because it is consistent with speculative or fraudulent ascriptions for which their is simply NO OTHER EVIDENCE AT ALL. So FIRST the Fictionalists tell us that Charles ROPER was born about 1720 and then this year is used to support the specious ascriptions as to the identity of Charles ROPER's father. * For these reasons, I would encourage HONEST researchers to use a broader range as to Charles ROPER's birth year which is actually objectively defensible based upon known primary evidence. I would suggest that this age range be set to about 1705-21. This represents an implict expectation that Charles ROPER was probably at least age 20 at marriage and no more than about age 85 at his death. There is admittedly nothing particularly magic about either the upper or lower bound given. Charles ROPER could have been a year or two younger at marriage (e.g. age 18) and could have been a year or two earlier at death (e.g. age 86 to 90, etc.). I would NOT think it inappropriate to broaden the range I suggest by one or more years. However, I would think it would be inapproriate to NARROW this range by more than a year or two, especially at the upper end of the year range. * * * Similar analysis might be applied to Ann GOODWYN's implict year of birth, with a couple of exceptions. First, NO ONE has ever bother to obtain and transcribe Charles ROPER's Dinwiddie Will and it is currently UNKNOWN whether Ann Goodwyn ROPER predeceased or survived her husband. Since we do NOT know whether Ann Goodwyn ROPER was still living, we have NO VALID BASIS to limit the lower bound of Ann's age based upon longevity. By contrast, Ann Goodwyn ROPER's continued fertility and the birth year of her youngest son -- Joel ROPER (b 26 Jun 1766) -- probably gives us some sense of the earliest plausible birth year for Ann. I would suggest that the LATEST age at which Ann Goodwyn ROPER, the mother of twelve children, would have given birth is probably about age 55 (with an earlier year MORE LIKELY). Thus, I would suggest that Ann GOODWYN would have been born at earliest about 1711, with later years much more likely. However the upper year of Ann GOODWYN's birth is AFTER 1720. It was not at all uncommon in those days for a woman to marry at age 16 and even, occasionally, sooner. Since David ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742 - Bristol Parish, VA) was born in June 1742, he must have been conceived in 1741. Ann Goodwyn ROPER might therefore easily have married in earliy 1741 or in some year previous. If Ann was age 16 at marriage, this would make a birth year of 1725 plausible. Thus, I would suggest that Ann Goodwyn ROPER's year of birth can most honestly be shown to be about 1711-25, with the upper end of this age range abt 1720-5 most likely. To this I would also add that by showing a FALSE PRECISION about Ann GOODWYN's year of birth the Fictionalists have also discouraged any honest inquiry into the identity of Ann GOODWYN's parents. * * * * * In conclusion, I would encourage ANYONE who values honesty and integrity to DISCONNECT Charles ROPER from any of the various specious lineages widely published based upon NO EVIDENCE and to show Charles ROPER's and Ann GOODWYN's years of birth as: Charles ROPER (b abt 1705-21) Ann GOODWYN (b abt 1711-25) I am very receptive to the idea that these suggested age ranges might be narrowed or otherwise altered based upon actual evidence rather than for the convenience of the proponents of dishonest lineages. * * * * * Finally, I want APOLOGIZE to ALL for having myself republished the clearly MISLEADING 1720 date during an interval when I gave misplaced reliance on the integrity and competence of other researchers. At one time, I imputed to others a level of care and honesty which clearly was never merited. The 1720 figure for Charles ROPER's year of birth is not so much inaccurate as it is erroneously precise. The 1720 figure for Ann GOODWYN is probably both erroneous as well as falsely precise. In seeking to better understand these enormously important ROPER ancestors, the very first thing that needs to be done is to obtain the extant Charles ROPER Will. Those who continue to pretend to be genealogists by making speculative or fanciful ascriptions, while failiing to obtain the very most basic of primary evidence, simply distract honest and serious researchers from a thoughtful and deliberate inquiry, which is probably precisely the point. Having published hopelessly erroneous data, the Fictionalists seem more interested in frustrating further progress which will show the falsity of their published accounts, rather than leading members of the ROPER family to the truth. I am VERY SORRY that my previous republication of the misleading dates for Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER served to confuse and mislead others! Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1935.1.1.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: In any discussion about militia rosters and muster rolls, it is probably appropriate to also mention that there has been a great dimunition in the public awareness and appreciation as to what was then commonly meant by the term "militia." Not only in Colonial times, but through the present date, in many states the term "militia" has a rather precise statutory definition and often even a definition set forth in the state constitution. These definitions are usually quite ancient and have often been carried forward through several different implementations of the state constitution. Those who misunderstand the true meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and who seek to deny the fundamental right to keep and bear arms often point to the mention within the Second Amendment of a "well regulated militia," as some evidence that less than everybody ought to have a right to bear arms. These people argue from a point of complete ignorance about wither the historic or even current meaning of the term. A few examples serve to clarify the meaning of militia in context. Article 219 of the Kentucky Constitution contains this ancient provision: "The militia of the Commonwealth of Kentucky shall consist of all able-bodied male residents of the State between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, except such persons as may be exempted by the laws of the State or of the United States." * Though the composition of the Pennsylvania militia is no longer Constitutional, it is still statutory. The current Pennsylvania statute on the militia is found in Title 51, "§ 301, which reads: "§ 301. Formation. (a) Pennsylvania militia.--The militia of this Commonwealth shall consist of: (1) all able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this Commonwealth, who are at least 17 years six months of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age; and (2) such other persons as may, upon their own application, be enlisted or commissioned therein." This version of the state militia law was adopted in 1976, but closely mirrors provisions which have been in effect in Pennsylvania for two and a half centuries. Pennsylvania was a late comer to enactment of militia laws due to the Quaker influence in the Colonial legislature. * Article VIII of the Tennessee Constitution concerns the state militia. This article begins: "Section 1. All militia officers shall be elected by persons subject to military duty, within the bounds of their several companies, battalions, regiments, brigades and divisions, under such rules and regulations as the Legislature may from time to time direct and establish." Article IV, Section 1 of the Tennessee Constitution includes: "All male citizens of this state shall be subject to the performance of military duty, as may be prescribed by law." * * * * * My overall point here is that in many states, the "militia" is essentially all able bodied adult males and almost always has been. So almost every male is in the "militia," but most usually do NOT know it. >From this basic rule that all able bodied males of military age were in the militia arose the necessity of keeping rosters or lists of who was subject to call up in emergency and of conducting annual elections of miitia officers to maintain, organize and command the militia when called into service. The evolution of militia service as the nation expanded, weapons changed and ownership of horses shifted also later led to an overlay of organized rather than "unorganized" militia units in many places. Citizens were often given a choice to affiliate with an organized, rather than a merely unorganized militia unit. The organized milita units met and trained regularly. Joining an organized militia rather than remaining within the unorganized militia meant that a man had some choice about the type of unit with which he might serve and could choose with whom to associate. Similarly, most organized units tended to elect their members and some were quite restrictive as to whom might be accepted. The organized militia units tended to have uniforms, sometimes quite regal, and some very specific military mission or function. Even so, EVERONE served WITHOUT COMPENSATION except when formally called into active service by the state or national government. For a look at a raucus militia training circa 1841, see the painting Militia Training by artist James G. Clonney (1812-1867) on permanent display at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts: http://www.pafa.org/museum/The-Collection-Greenfield-American-Art-Resource/Tour-the-Collection/Category/Collection-Detail/985/mkey--232/view--True/ So it is with my private milita unit in Philadelphia, which meets WEEKLY for regular riding practice and monthly for a regular business dinner meeting. The Troop has been doing this for more than two centuries. This is NOT a "re-enactment" unit. Rather, it is simply a private militia that continues to have an ongoing military mission. When I joined, the unit had M-60 tanks, as well as horses. These were soon upgraded to M1 Abrams tanks and the Troop once had two tank platoons. As the cavalry mission has continued to evolve, tanks have recently been removed from the Troop's regular armament, but the cavalry mission persists. Now, the horses are merely for tradition, ceremonial functions, recreation and training, continuing to build teamwork and esprit de corps. When called to active military service, modern military vehicles and weapons are employed. While private militias have mostly fallen by the wayside in the modern era, one can still see some aspects of this sprit of voluntarism in local volunteer fire companies in more rural and some suburban areas. Similarly some of the militia traditions are mirrored in college fraternities and a number of adult fraternal and benevolent organizations in which men regularly meet and engage in collective projects. I thought this might further inform your understanding of the ancient militia tradition and my acquaintance with this tradition. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Davis, Roper Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1914.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: There is a marriage record in Fulton County, KY, showing the marriage of Jefferson Davis to Nannie S ROPER on 22 Jan 1885. Is this the Jefferson Davis you mentioned in your post? See: "Kentucky Marriages, 1785-1979," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/F4SP-C43 : accessed 25 Aug 2014), Jeff Davis and Nannie S. Roper, 22 Jan 1885; citing Fulton, Kentucky, United States, reference 349; FHL microfilm 1759339. Similarly, there is a marriage record showing the marriage of Albert M. ROPER to Mary E. DAVIS on 18 Jul 1880 in Fulton County, KY. See: "Kentucky Marriages, 1785-1979," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/FW1P-XMV : accessed 25 Aug 2014), Albert M. Roper and Mary E. Davis, 18 Jul 1880; citing Fulton, Kentucky, reference PAGE 44; FHL microfilm 1759346. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1935.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: I have pored over more than a few militia lists from the Southern States for the period indicated and these are typically ordered much as this particular list was ordered. It seems to me that it is a bit of an aggrandizement to describe something as a "Tax List" if the list FAILS TO SHOW any basis for application of a tax or a calculation of tax amounts. Land tax lists typically show acreage, value and the amount of the tax. Personal property tax lists typically show the number of tithable (taxable) males, the number of slaves, counts of livestock or other taxable personal property. Militia lists tend to show none of these, but rather usually include the names of officers, NCOs and then the various privates. As to militia units generally, I have for more than two decades also been a member of one of the oldest private militias in the United States, founded in 1774, which has continuously operated as a militia since that time. Our militia unit has original muster rolls, journals, records and various biographical information on its members from the Revolutionary period to the present date. This unit, being composed primarily of gentlemen of fortune, is a cavalry unit. This unit still ELECTS its members and also ELECTS its officers. These private militia units were once quite common. Thomas ROPER, of Charleston, SC, was Captain of a similar Troop in the early Federal Period. Most of the private units were chewed up during World War I, as well as the organization of the modern National Guard after the Civil War. More than twenty five years of service in the Marine Corps, Marine Corps Reserve and Army National Guard also informs my understanding of the military. Although the details and processes have somewhat changed over more than two centuries, there are some things that have endured. This includes the necessity of having a "Roster" of who is a member of a company, the necessity of having a muster and expressly identifying those entering active service when the active service commences, and another muster out (discharge) when the active service has been completed. Although modern mobilizations and releases from active duty involve far more paperwork, ultimately, this paperwork reduces to a simple list like those used since the Revolutionary period. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: batchelorw Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1935.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Bill, Your point is certainly not trivial, and your discussion of the Militia Company Lists is something that I had never heard of. How did you become so knowledgeable about a subject like that? In any case, your contribution is very much appreciated. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Rosser, Wilson, Willson, Rives, RIEVES, Harris, Quarles, Meade Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1939.16/mb.ashx Message Board Post: There are several published sources which memorialize Brunswick marriages. Though there are only a handful of ROPER and ROSSER marriages of note in the Colonial and early Federal period, I mention each of these as a finding aid for those interested in a further investigation of the allied and related families in Brunswick. The first compilation seems to have been the book Marriage Bonds and Ministers' Returns of Brunswick County, 1750-1810, compiled by Catherine Lindsay KNORR (Pine Bluff, Ark, The Perdue Co., for Catherine Lindsay KNORR, 1953). Mrs. KNORR seems to have taken great pains in researching and comparing alternative primary sources of both bonds and ministers returns both at the Brunswick County Counthouse and at the Virginia State Library and Archives. This compilation gives very specific citations to the source in which Mrs. KNORR found the information abstracted. I found this book at the North Carolina State Library. It had Library of Congress Catalogue No. GR 929.3 V8br K72m. The first ROPER mention is at page 39: "26 October 1809. Henry HARRIS and Mary M. ROPER. Married by the Rev. Peter WYNNE. Ministers' Returns, p. 389." A ROSSER marriage appears at page 81: "-- May 1791. Benjamin RIEVES (or RIVES) and Bethea ROSSER, widow. Sur. John ROSSER. Wit. W. EDWARDS and George LITTLE. 20 W(1) 195 says 'Bathin.' Also Wm. & M. Q. (1) Vol. 28 (1920) p. 168. p. 23." * * * * * A subsequent compilation of Brunswick marriages appeared a couple of decades lates and was more formally published: Marriage Records of Brunswick County, Virginia, 1730-1852, compiled by Augusta B. FOTHERGILL (Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1976). Ms. FOTHERGILL seems to have drawn on Mrs. KNORR's previous volume, perhaps with permission. Ms. FOTHERGILL's compilation has the advantage of extending the marriages included by four decades, but she does not take the same care as Mrs. KNORR in identifying her sources. Even so, this is also a helpful source that is meritworthy of further consultation. I also found this book at the North Carolina State Library. It had Library of Congress Call Number GR 929.3 V8br F761m 1730/1852. This Volume is also shown to have Library of Congress Catalogue Card No. 75-34969 and ISBN 0-8063-0704-8. This volume is likely to be far more readily available at more libraries than the privately printed KNORR compilation. The first mention I have in my notes from the FOTHERGILL compilation is at apge 28: "25 Feb. 1775 DAVIS m Mary ROSSER, dau. of John (W.B. IV, 471)" Next is this ROSSER mention at page 99: "* May 1791 REIVES, Benajmin Jr. Bathin ROSSER, John ROSSER, sec." No ROPER marriages are shown in this volumen. * * * * * The most academically rigorous and recent compilation is that titled (Brunswick County Marriages, 1750-1853, compiled by John VOGT and T. William KETHLEY, Jr. (Athens, Georgia: Iberian Publishing Co., 1988). I also found this compilation in the North Carolina State Library. It had Library of Congress Call Number 929.3 V8br V886b 1750/1853 and has ISBN 0-935-931-40-6. The VOGT compilation show at page 114 the marriage of Jeremiah ROPER and Patsey WILSON on 22 Dec 1785. The bondsman is shown to be Moses QUARLES, Jr. Patsey WILSON is shown to be a daughter of John WILSON. The witness is shown to be Andrew MEADE and the marriage seems to have been performed by Thoams LUNDIE, Rector of St. Andrews Parish. At page 115, this compilation also shows the marriage of David ROSSER and Betty RIEVES on 03 Nov. 1778. Benjamin RIEVES is shown to be the bondsman and there is an indication that Benjamin also consented to the marriage, suggesting that he might have been the father. Benjamin RIEVES Jr. and Mary RIEVES are shown to be witnesses to this marriage. The aforementioned marriage ot Mary ROPER and Henry HARRIS on 26 Oct 1809 is shown at page 254. Peter WYNNE is again shown as the minister performing this marriage. On page 255, the aforementioned marriage of Bethea ROSSER to Benjamin RIEVES in May 1791 is shown. Again, Bethea ROSSER is shown to be a widow. John ROSSER is identified as a bondsman. Witnesses are shown to be W. EDWARDS and George LITTLE. * * * * * NOTE 1: The most significant of these marriages for ROPER genealogy is probably that of Jeremiah ROPER to Patsey WILSON, daughter of John WILSON. Jeremiah ROPER appears in several other places within the Brunswick records. Jeremiah ROPER is shown to be a witness (along with Moses QUARLES, Jr.) to the deed of Joel and Ann BIGGS for 50 acres of land on Hickory Run dated 07 Dec 1784 [Brunswick Deed Book 14, Page 128]. Similarly, Jeremiah ROPER is shown to be a witness (together with David ROPER) to the deed of John HARVEY of a parcel on Red Oak Creek on 14 Jan 1785 [Brunswick Deed Book 14, Page 114]. NOTE 2: Moses QUARLES is shown to have witnessed the deed of conveyance of a 200 acre parcel on the South side of the Nottoway River joining John DAVIS and Cabbin Branch purchased by Charles ROPER, of Dinwiddie, from Hugh and Elizabeth WILLIAMS on 28 Sep 1767 [Brunswick, VA, Deed Book 9, Page 46]. NOTE 3: Moses QUARLES, Jr. appears in a number of records together with the ROPERs. Moses QUARLES was the trustee of a 22 Oct 1790 deed of trust for land on Red Oak Creek granted to him as trustee by Thomas HARVEY. This deed of trust mentions William MOORE and David ROPER acting as securities for Thomas HARVEY, as well as Benjamin ROPER, as witness [Brunswick, VA, Deed Book 15, Page 43]. Moses QUARLES, Jr., is shown as a witness together with David ROPER, Moses QUARLES and William MOORE of a 28 Jan 1788 conveyance of 78 1/2 acres from John QUARLES, Sr., to James QUARLES, Jr. [Brunswick, VA, Deed Book 14, page 404]. This property is shown to adjoin the property of both David ROPER and William ROPER. NOTE 4: In William ROPER's deed of 06 Aug 1791 to his brother Joel ROPER, James QUARLES is shown to be an immediate neighbor of William ROPER's near the head of Red Oak Creek. Benjamin ROPER, Benjamin MOORE and David ROPER are shown to be the witnesses to William ROPER's deed [Brunswick Deed Book 15, Page 182]. Joel and Lucy ROPER then conveyed this same parel to James QUARLES, Sr., on 27 Feb, 1792. Moses QUARLES, Jr., Benjamin ROPER, William MOORE and David ROPER were witnesses to this second conveyance [Brunswick, VA, Deed Book 15, Page 231]. James QUARLES then reconveyed this parcel back to William ROPER on 02 Jan 1793, with David ROPER, Charles MOORE, William MOORE and Benjamin MOORE serving as witnesses [Brunswick Deed Book 15, page 439]. William ROPER gave a deed of trust to the Estate of Charles ROPER in respect of this latter transaction [Brunswick Deed Book 15, page 441]. NOTE 5: It seems likely that Jeremiah ROPER was probably age 21 by the date he witnessed the Joel BIGGS conveyance in 1784 (b bef 1764). Jeremiah ROPER's appearance on deeds involving land at or near Red Oak Creek and Hickory Run is suggestive of a close connection to David ROPER and William ROPER, each of whom resided there at the date of these transactions. Jeremiah ROPER could have been a son of David ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742), though if this is the case he seems likely to have been one of David ROPER's eldest children. It is less likely that Jeremiah would have been a son of William ROPER (b 26 Jun 1753) unless he was still a child when he witnessed the conveyance. But the marriage on 22 Dec 1785 would seem to suggest that Jeremiah was probably an adult of about age 20 to 21 at the date of that marriage. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Trotter, Willson, Wilson, Latimer, Meade, Perry, Fisher Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1939.15/mb.ashx Message Board Post: There is a very brief mention of an Elizabeth Forrister ROPER within the transcription of the Will of Hannah TROTTER dated 17 Oct 1794 and Proved in Brunswick County, Virginia, on 23 Oct 1797. Since a transcription of this Will may be readily found online at the Archive.org site and was published within the Southside Virginian, I am only including sufficient abstract information to make discovery and reference of this post convenient using the RootWeb Message Board search facility. I am including the mention within this thread which collects some of the other abundant information about the ROPER families which resided in Brunswick, VA. The transcription appears within "Recorded Wills of Brunswick County," by Susan B. SHEPPARD, The Southside Virginian, Volume 3, No. 1 (Oct 1984), page 35. The mention in Hannah TROTTER's Will is very terse: "Item. I give and bequeath to Elizabeth forrister Roper one Gold ring also one striped Virginia cloth gound, to her and her heirs forever." Hannah TROTTER made two other bequests seemingly to direct or collateral members of the WILLSON family: Nancy WILLSON, Henery [Henry] Willson LATIMER and the children of Henery WILLSON. Hannah TROTTER appoints John WILLSON and Jonathan FISHER as executors. Witnesses to this Will were John LATIMER and Mouring PERRY. Hannah TROTTER and Jahn LATIMER signed by mark. See transcription of this Will appearing online at: https://archive.org/stream/southsidevirgini3198485#page/35/mode/1up/search/Roper * * * NOTE 1: In my view, the overall context of this Will suggests that it might be that of an older widow who is making small, mostly sentimental bequests, possibly to grandchildren, Godchildren, or neighbors for whom she has an affinity, but this is far from certain. NOTE 2: The several mentions of WILLSON in different conexts -- naming John WILLSON as co-executor, Henery WILLSON's children, Nancy WILLSON and Henery Willson LATIMER -- suggest a close connection to the WILLSON family. NOTE 3: Jeremiah ROPER is KNOWN to have married Patsey WILSON, daughter of John WILSON, in Brunswick, VA, on on 22 Dec 1785. Andrew MEADE was the witness and the marriage was performed by Thomas LUNDIE, Rector of St. Andrews Parish. The marriage of Jeremiah ROPER to Patsy WILSON seems to introduce at least the bare possibility that Elizabeth Forrister ROPER could be a daughter from that marriage. * * * I have NOT undertaken any concerted study of the WILSON family in Brunswick. A study of the abundant extant deed records, Will records and marriage records from that county may inform our understanding of Hannah TROTTER's relationship to the WILSONs and possible connection to the ROPER family. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Rosser Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1898.5.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Within my April 2014 post above, I noted the purported presence of two ROPERs on the 1812 Tax Lists for Robertson County, Tennessee: "It is my understanding that a John ROPER and a David ROPER appear on the Tax List for Robertson County, TN, in 1812. I have NOT seen this Tax List." After examining the images of BOTH of these entries, I have reached the conclusion that these are at best ambiguous entries that might say ROSSER, rather than ROPER records. The 1812 Robertson Tax List is now available on Ancestry.com. A John ROPER is shown within the Index and the entry appears at Image 6 of 93. The entry for John ROPER/ROSSER is within Captain ELLIOTT's Company, apearing as the second entry from the top in the fourth column. Compare the "p" in the name Joseph for the entry of Joseph WASHINGTON half way down the same column. Then compare the "ss" in Jesse in Jesse MARTIN's name two entries later. Similarly, there is a Jesse MOSELY in the third column. But then seen the "p" in Christopher CHEATHAM's name (3rd Column), the "p" in Spencer PICKERING, the "p" in the word Company, and the "p" in Richard COOPER. The bottom line is that the writing of "p" and "ss" on this page seems to me to be completley ambiguous. I am therefore NOT declaring a belief that John ROPER is a ROSSER, but rather only cautioning that other records need to be consulted for context. * * * I find the appearance of David ROPER or ROSSER at Image 7 to be somewhat more troubling. This David ROPER or ROSSER is shown to be within Captain YATES' Company. The name looks more like ROSSER to me (4th Column). Compare the "p" in Joseph FREY (3rd Column) the "p" in "Capt." or the in "Compy." or the "p" in Joseph PAINE (4th Column). I see LITTLE REASON to suspect that the name is ROPER and much reason to suspect that it says ROSSER, despite the appearance of several members of the YATES family on this list. I would counsel some CAUTION in concluding that ROPERs were in Robertson County in 1812, though I see more than a little room for doubt as to interpretation of the handwriting. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Atkins Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1935.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: I want to make a perhaps trivial point about Charles ROPER's placement on the 1811 Stewart County Tax List. It is unclear whether the issue I distinguish would be of any significance. You stated in your post: "Charles Roper is next seen in an image of the 1811 Stewart County Tax List on page 5 on Ancestry.com. Charles is seen living within 5 properties of two members of the Atkins' family, Asa Atkins and Ephraim Atkins. On page 3 of the Tax List, you will find John Atkins, Sr., John Atkins, Jr., George Atkins, William Atkins, James Atkins, and Lewis Atkins, all listed next to each other in that order." I would call your attention to the fact that Charles ROPER is shown to be on the list of free men in Captain ATKINS' District. Though denominated as a Tax List, the core organization of this List is by MILITIA Company. Asa ATKINS is listed FIRST on this list, probably because Asa ATKINS is Captain Asa ATKINS and this is the List of HIS MILITIA COMPANY. Next, I would disagree that Charles ROPER is "living within 5 properties of two members of the Atkins' family." If you look carefully at this List, you will find that the list is primarily in quas--alphabetical order. The EXCEPTION to this Order is the first seven entries: Asa ATKINS Caleb WILLIAMS Ephraim ATKINS John WILLIAMS James WILLIAMS Charles ROPER William WRIGHT The list then picks up with Walter BROWN and continues in a mostly alphabetical order. I believe that what distinguishes the first seven entries is NOT proximity, but rather RANK. Asa ATKINS is the Captain of the Company. Caleb WILLIAMS and Ephraim ATKINS are likely to be Lieutenants and the remaining names BEFORE the alphabetical portion begins are likely to be the non-commissioned officers of this Company -- sergeants and, perhaps, a corporal. I certainly cannot PROVE that this is the organization, as there is no indication that Charles ROPER was a Sergeant in the War of 1812. But also bear in mind that the militia units were subject to annual elections of officers and the officers usually appointed the NCOs. It might be quite natural for Asa ATKINS to rely upon a brother-in-law as a sergeant in his company. While the suggestion of militia rank order is admittedly speculative, I believe that the appearance of the bulk of the list in alphabetical order precludes us from ascribing any strong inference that the list is in proximity order. I think that it could probably be inferred that Charles ROPER was "closer" either in rank, proximity and/or MIND to Captain ATKINS when Captain Atkins made up his List. But this could have begun as simply as STARTING the list around the dinner table and FIRST writing down the names of those visiting his house for dinner when he was reminded that he needed to make up a List of his Company. I think you can reasonably argue that Charles ROPER was "close" to Asa ATKINS in some way that is reflected in the List, but identification the precise nature of this "closeness" is somewhat more problematic. Charles ROPER actually served under the command of Captain James HAGGARD during the War of 1812 / Creek War. This might mean any one of a number of things. First, HAGGARD (NOT shown on the 1811 List) may have displaced Captain ATKINS by election. Second, Captain Asa ATKINS might have been placed in a battalion or regimental staff position, creating a vacancy. Third, the basic neighborhood militia organization was designed for general mobilizations, while units were separately organized and filled by VOLUNTEERS when units were needed for some extended active duty. Thus, Charles ROPER might have simply VOLUNTEERED to serve in another unit being mustered in for a particular mission or engagement. Fourth, again the basic local militia organization didn't differentiate as to company specialization. But this created some problems when a particular mission suggested a particular type of unit composition / specialty. By this, I mean simply that every man mustered in with his own rifle could readily form an infantry company. But NOT every man owned a horse! Thus, horses were mostly a privilege of officers, messengers or sometimes scouts. But also, there were both early cavalry units intended to FIGHT while mounted and also for traditional cavalry missions, including reconnaisance, scouting, screening, etc., as well as "mounted infantry," in which every member of the company was expected to have a horse and to use mounted means to get to the place of engagement, but then to engage and fight as infantry. Charles ROPER served in the War of 1812 in Dyer's Reg't, Cavalry and Mtd. Gunmen. Though I haven't made any formal study of the organiation of such a unit, I would assume that ir would be composed of one or more troops of cavalry, as well as companies of mounted infantry ("mounted gunmen"). Such a unit would be much more mobile and able to traverse greater distances quickly than a traditional infantry company operating on foot. But one could not simply designate a local Company as either cavalry or mounted gunmen. One would need to build such companies from volunteers already owning horses and able to ride well. The distinction between cavalry and mounted gunmen would also probably be a matter of skill in the saddle. A farmer might have a horse for use on a farm mostly as a draft animal to pull a plow or wagon, but only have occasions to ride regularly any distance. But a gentleman of fortune and leisure would be more likely to have both a horse and an opportunity to ride as others tilled the fields. The sons of gentlemen NOT elected as officers would have preferred a cavalry troop. Less skilled riders who owned a horse might hope to be a mounted gunman in a mounted infantry company. * Finally, finding additional members of an ATKINS family on an adjacent page, but in a different Company is less significant as to proximity. At best, one can say that there were other members of the ATKINS family in this county. But their placement in a consecutively placed List of a different company probably implies NOTHING as to proximity other than that they are in the same county. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1762.7.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: In my post above "Benjamin MOORE (b 31 Aug 1771 - VA) and the Prior ROPER Family Connection To the CRITCHLOW Family," I studied various alternative Virginia candidates to be Benjamin MOORE's (b 31 Aug 1771 - VA), settling upon a Benjamin ROPER shown in the 1810 U.S. Census then residing in Brunswick, Virginia. Quite separately, I have recently been posting transcriptions of my notes regarding the Brunswick ROPER family. See: "Notes on the ROPER Family from the Brunswick, Virginia, Records" (16 Aug 2014 12:16PM) http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.roper/1939/mb.ashx Within this thread, it emerges that Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER's sons David ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742 - Bristol Parish, VA) and William ROPER (b 26 Jun 1753) were residing immediately adjacent to William and Laura Roper MOORE, Benjamin MOORE's parents near Red Oak Creek just South of the Nottoway River. Because ROPER researchers have completely IGNORED the abundant information available about Charles ROPER's family for DECADES, little is actually known about most of Charles ROPER's grandchildren. When one actually begins to investigate ANY of Charles ROPER's children or grandchildren, one quickly finds various migrations in close tandem with cousins and in-laws. The investigation also quickly shatters most of the speculative, whimsical or fraudulent ascriptions purporting to show various other contemporary ROPERs to be related to other families and especially to various COMPLETELY FICTITIOUS ROPER ancestors. This is hardly rocket science. As soon as one ABANDONS the dishonest published data and begins a thorough examination of ANY BRANCH of Charles ROPER's family, it tends to result in the evisceration of decades of irresponsible and dishonest published ascription. This is precisely WHY I have been suggesting to EVERY ROPER shown to be a member of the MUR ROPER family that they need to ABANDON and DISCARD the dishonest published family history and simply do the basic things that honest, competent genealogists do to understand and elaborate their family history. This is done NOT by making speculative ascriptions and moving on without examing ANY of the primary records, but instead by looking record by record at the primary evidence as to EACH person of interest, including SIBLINGS. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Cranford Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1942.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: This elaboration is intended as a further finding aid for those interested in this ROPER family. The grave marker more precisely shows: "BELOVED MOTHER ELNORA C. ROPER SEPT. 21, 1923 SEPT 9 1999" * * * * * The Social Security Death Index shows this Elnora ROPER (b 21 Sep 1923, d 09 Sep 1999) as having Social Security Number 456-44-2440. * * * Based upon the location in the cemetery and the marriage record of a Payton ROPER to an Elnora CRANFORD, this seems likely to be the widow of Payton ROPER Jr. discussed in my previous post: "Payton ROPER, Jr (b 07 May 1913, d 20 Jun 1986)" (23 Aug 2014 5:22PM GMT) http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1941.1/mb.ashx * * * This seems likely to be the Elnore H. CRANFORD enumerated in the 1930 U.S. Census at age 6 residing in Cleveland, Miller County, Arkansas, within the household of Jack and Mamie CRANFORD. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1941.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: There are several records which seem to be promising in identifying the father of Payton ROPER, Jr (b 07 May 1913, d 20 Jun 1986). The indication of "Jr." is suggestive that Payton ROPER's father was also named Payton ROPER, but this is NOT conclusive, particularly with older records wherein sometimes "Jr." is simply used to distinguish a younger and older person of the same name. * * * 1900 CENSUS RECORD However, the close correspondence as to geography and age is suggestive that a Peyton ROPER found in the 1900 Census is a very good candidate to be Payton ROPER's father. This Payton ROPER, age 20, born Dec 1879 in Texas, is found within the household of Turner ROPER, age 68, born Jul 1831 in Alabama. Turner ROPER is shown to have been married for 33 years, presumably to the Ann ROPER, age 61, born Aug 1838 in North Carolina. Curiously, the eldest son residing in this household is simply identified as "Roper", age 25, born Sep 1874 in Texas. This son corresponds in age to the "Edd ROPER" found in the 1940 Census record shown in the prior post. The household shows: ROPER, Turner, Head, B, M, born Jul 1831, age 68, Married 33 Years, born Ala, Father born Ala., Mother born Ala. ROPER, Ann, wife, B, F, born Aug 1838, age 61, Married 33 Years, 9 children, 6 children living, born NC, Father born NC, Mother born NC. ROPER, Roper, Son, B, M, born Sep 1874, age 25, Single, born Texas, Father born Ala., Mother born NC ROPER, Charles, Son, B, M, born Oct 1877, age 22, Single, born Texas, Father born Ala., Mother born NC ROPER, Peyton, Son, B, M, born Dec 1879, age 20, Single, born Texas, Father born Ala., Mother born NC ROPER, Delphina, Daughter, B, F, born Mar 1881, age 19, Single, born Texas, Father born Ala., Mother born NC STORY, Mattie, Niece, B, F, born Mar 1883, age 17, Single, born Texas, Father born Texas, Mother born Texas See: "United States Census, 1900," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/M3LD-NXJ : accessed 24 Aug 2014), Peyton Roper in household of Turner Roper, Justice Precinct 1 (west part), Cass, Texas, United States; citing sheet 2B, family 25, NARA microfilm publication T623, FHL microfilm 1241618. * * * 1910 CENSUS RECORD In 1910, there is a black "Baton ROPER," age 30, shown to be residing in Justice Precinct 1, Cass County, Texas. Although Baton ROPER identifies the place of birth of his parents as Texas, this still seems likely to be the Peyton or Payton ROPER shown to be residing a decade earlier with his father Turner ROPER. [Image 34 of 55 at the Ancestry.com presentation of the Census data for this jurisdiction] See: "United States Census, 1910," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/M29N-G56 : accessed 23 Aug 2014), Baton Roper, Justice Precinct 1, Cass, Texas, United States; citing enumeration district (ED) 26, sheet 17B, family 331, NARA microfilm publication T624, FHL microfilm 1375550. * * * 1880 CENSUS RECORD Turner ROPER, age 41, is also enumerated residing in Cass County, TX, in 1880, with wife Ann ROPER, and family. It appears that the elder Peyton/Payton ROPER must be the child shown as "Corry or Coney" and identified as being age 6/12 (b abt Dec 1879). [Image 6 of 89 at the Ancestry.com presentation of the Census data for this jurisdiction] See: "United States Census, 1880," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MFFT-CBF : accessed 24 Aug 2014), Turner Roper, Precinct 1, Cass, Texas, United States; citing sheet 65B, NARA microfilm publication T9. * * * WORLD WAR I DRAFT REGISTRATION CARD Payton/Peyton ROPER is shown as "Paten Glase ROPER," born 15 Dec 1878 in his 1918 World War I Draft Registration Card. See: "United States World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-25103-89389-61?cc=1968530 : accessed 24 Aug 2014), Texas > Cass County; D-Z > image 3271 of 4821; citing NARA microfilm publication M1509 (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d). I am more inclined to believe the 1880 and 1900 Census records and suspect that the correct date of birth is 15 Dec 1879. * * * SERVING SENTENCE AT HUNTSVILLE, TX The elder Payton/Peyton ROPER seems to appear on the Texas Convict Register at Huntsville as No. 48415, convicted of manufacture of liquor on 02 Oct 1922 and sentenced to a one year term. This register contains some very detailed information. * * * There is a wealth of other readily available information about the family of Turner ROPER at Ancestry.com and at FamilySearch.org. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Cranford Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1941.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: To improve discoverability of this grave marker, I am more fully transcribing what the image shows and also adding some additional related information. The grave marker photographed for teafor2 by researcher David STRICKLAND says: "IN LOVING MEMORY OF PAYTON ROPER, JR. MAY 7, 1913 JUNE 20, 1986" See: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~t42cemeteries/USER/TX/Dallas/Lincoln/S6304645.JPG * * * * * The Social Security Death Index shows a record for the death of a Payton ROPER (b 07 May 1913, d Jun 1986), with Social Security Number 430-14-8027. The application for a Social Security Number should identify this Payton ROPER's parents. See: "United States Social Security Death Index," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/JP11-6MX : accessed 23 Aug 2014), Payton Roper, Jun 1986; citing U.S. Social Security Administration, Death Master File, database (Alexandria, Virginia: National Technical Information Service, ongoing). * * * 1940 CENSUS Payton ROPER, age 24, is shown enumerated within the 1840 Census residing in Texarkana, Miller County, Arkansas, with wife Lee Eunice ROPER, age 21. Both are shown to have been born in TEXAS. Both are also shown to be Black. [Image 2 of 50 for Enumeration District 46-8 in Texarkana, Miller County] See: "United States Census, 1940," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/KQK6-3HV : accessed 23 Aug 2014), Payton Roper, Ward 1, Texarkana, Garland Township, Miller, Arkansas, United States; citing enumeration district (ED) 46-8, sheet 1B, family 17, NARA digital publication of T627, roll 154. Within the immediately preceeding record there is a household headed by an Ed ROPER, age 66, born in Texas. Edd ROPER has two nieces -- Donil and Rozell -- residing with him. It is UNCLEAR whether Payton ROPER is a son or nephew, but he seems likely to be related. * * * 1930 CENSUS In 1930, Payton ROPER is shown (as "Paton") to be residing within the hosehold of his brother "J. O. ROPER," age 19, in Cass County, Texas. Also in J. O. ROPER's household are wife Vera ROPER, age 18, Orbert?, age 2 1/2, a son, younger brother Rayfield ROPER, age 13, and two sisters Lucille and Donil, each age 7. Each of these ROPERs is shown to have been born in Texas to parents also each born in Texas. See: "United States Census, 1930," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/C742-MZM : accessed 23 Aug 2014), Paton Roper in household of J O Roper, Precinct 4, Cass, Texas, United States; citing enumeration district (ED) 0017, sheet 4B, family 73, NARA microfilm publication T626, roll 2306. * * * MARRIAGE RECORD Payton ROPER is shown to have married Elnora CRANFORD on 16 Aug 1943 in Miller County, Arkansas. See: "Arkansas, County Marriages, 1837-1957," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11673-96522-78?cc=1417439 : accessed 23 Aug 2014), 1977384(004401632) > image 301 of 849. The marriage record reflects that Payton ROPER is of Cass County, Texas. * * * * * Hopefully, this additional information will make the cemetery information somewhat more useful and might form the basis of a more in depth study of this ROPER family. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Fincher Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1903.4.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I want to take a moment to expressly AGREE with the post of researcher David STRICKLAND shown above who contacted me earlier this past week about the ERROR in my post showing Joseph F. ROPER's middle name as "Fletcher." Even absent the specific PRIMARY SOURCE information David cites showing rather conclusively that Joseph F. ROPER's middle name was "Fincher," it is INAPPROPRIATE to simply GUESS at a middle name. There being NO KNOWN RECORD which supports the ascription as "Fletcher," at best any researcher (myself included) ought to have been content simply using the middle initial "F." had we not been alerted to the more thorough research showing "Fincher" as the middle name on the cited land certificate. But were we to STRAY from the KNOWN missle initial into conjecture or speculation at what the middle initial may have MEANT, the single best clue which might be at least suggestive of the given name (absent the land certificate cite by David) would be the maiden name of Joseph F. ROPER's mother. John ROPER is KNOWN to have married Sarah FINCHER. This marriage is shown within the Index to the Mecklenburg, NC, Marriage register, with Jonathan FINCHER, as bondsman, and Isaac ALEXANDER, the County Clerk, acting as witness. See: "North Carolina, County Marriages, 1762-1979 ," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11864-73441-74?cc=1726957 : accessed 23 Aug 2014), 004364137 > image 235 of 1483. Similarly, the actual marriage bond is also readily available at the LDS FamilySearch.org site: "North Carolina, County Marriages, 1762-1979 ," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-12399-109563-49?cc=1726957 : accessed 23 Aug 2014), 004364141 > image 268 of 762. * * * While I would NOT support the ascription of a middle name based solely upon the bare speculation that the middle initial reflected the mother's maiden name, I woulld certainly agree that the correspondence of the middle initial to the mother's maiden name might support a WEAK INFERENCE that the mother's maiden name was in fact used as a given name. The strength of the inference would be wholly dependent upon WHICH LETTER OF THE ALPHABET was used as a middle initial. In my view, the inference would be exceptionally weak when the middle initial was something like a "J," which might readily reflect a number of very common given male names (e.g. "John," "James," "Joseph," "Jesse," "Jeremiah," etc.) and would be strongest when the middle initial was a letter for which both given names and surnames were uncommon (e.g. "Q," "U," "V," "X," "Y," and "Z"). Thus, if the Mother's maiden name had been JOHNSON and the middle initial was "J," this would seem to me to provide such weak support as to be essentially NO credible evidence supporting a conclusive ascription, though it might be further support of an ascription based upon another primary source. By contrast, if the mother's maiden name was UTLEY and the son's middle initial was "U" this would support a much stronger inference that the "U" reflected a given name memorializing the mother's surname. The middle initial "F" is somewhere in between, used in reasonably common male given names such as Francis and Frederick, but not nearly as common as "J." Thus the appearance of "F" as the son's middle initial probably supported at least a weak inference that the given name was "Fincher," but any ascription that the name was "Fletcher" would need to be supported by some strong primary evidence. Taken together with the primary record showing a Joseph Fincher ROPER to be the grantee of the parcel, this seems to me absolutely CONCLUSIVE of the matter and UNLESS someone can bring forward some DIRECT PRIMARY EVIDENCE supporting the ascription of the "Fletcher" versus "Fincher," I would encourage ALL researchers to CHANGE their records to reflect the name "Joseph Fincher ROPER" rather than "Joseph Fletcher ROPER." For those of you unfamiliar with honest genealogical proof standards, the appearance of the given name "Fletcher" in some secondary account or compilation, whether digital or in print, is NO EVIDENCE that the correct name is "Fletcher." Instead, this is only evidence that careless or dishonest persons have rushed to publish unsourced information. Those who cling to an ascription because they read it in some printed compilation they found in a library or because they found it online in an unsourced compilation distinguish themselves only by demonstrating at best their own gullibility and at worst their tendency to parrot the frequently unreliable accounts of careless and dishonest family historians! Many thanks to researcher David STRICKLAND for calling attention to MY MISTAKE and showing us a primary record which conclusively shows that "Fincher" is correct! Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: t42Lincoln_DallasCoTX Surnames: ROPER Classification: cemetery Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1942/mb.ashx Message Board Post: ROPER Elnora C 1923 1999 beloved mother DaveStrickland photographed this gravestone in the Lincoln Memorial Cemetery, Dallas, Dallas Co., Texas. Feel free to use these pictures for your personal records. See this photo, one of the 236,980 cemetery photos free at http://teafor2.com . If you know more about this person please reply here,instead of contacting me because this is most likely not my family. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: batchelorw Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1923.2.1.4.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Bill, I feel like a blockhead for making the statement that David Rober is probably the Rev David Roper who married Sally Stell and is probably the brother of John Roper". I had a different David Roper in mind when I said that. Of course, you have documented that David Roper, who married Sally Stell, is most likely the son of Joel Roper, son of Charles and Ann Goodwyn. You have done a good job of critiquing my post on John Roper and Sophia Clacker, and what turns out to be my non responsive reply to your post, which I unfortunately misinterpreted. However, rather than going back and trying to clean up the mess, I think it best to reply to your post of August 23, 2014 titled "Did Meredith Roper Have Any Children". Notwithstanding what Dave Roper might, in your opinion, profess, I think that you and I have separate paradigms for the lineages of Charles Roper, d. 1792, Dinwiddie, VA, Meredith Roper, and David Roper of Caswell, NC. So I will attempt to carefully explain my position and, in the process, hopefully respond to the questions in your last series of critiques, However, this may take me a week to compose. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1851.3/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: In your post above, you assert parenthetically in discussing Meredith ROPER: "I believe that L David Roper's best guess as to Meredith's children are Solomon Benjamin, Charles, Daniel, Joshua, David, and Aaron." I was wondering if you could acquaint me with the evidence that you believe supports an ascription of ANY children whatsoever to Meredith ROPER? It seems to me that describing the ascription of these purported ancestors as a "guess" of Dave ROPER's somewhat aggrandizes the possibility for any support of such an assertion. As far as I know, there are only TWO records that purports to show Meredith ROPER as a head of household. In one of these, Meredith is shown to be one of three adult males in the household: Meredith ROPER: .. 3 - 1 - 4 -- 0 - 0 [Rutherford, NC 1790] There is one younger male in the household. This record is equally consistent with the other adult males being brothers, nephews, or simply unrelated male farm laborers. The record is also equally consistent with one or more of the females within this household being spouses or daughters of the other adult males. If there was one older male and one older female, this might support a reasonably strong inference that the male and female might be married. When there are three adult males in the household, it seems to me that there is NO strong inference whcih can be derived about the relationship of the head of household to the others. In fact, the ONLY strong inference I believe can be drawn is that Meredith is either the LAND OWNER or he is OLDER than the other members of this household. Since he was then probably at least abt age 58, it seems likely that he would have been listed as the head of household no matter what his relationship was to the others UNLESS one of the others was the land owner. * In the OTHER record, there are ZERO other males in Meredith ROPER's Pendleton household: Meredith ROPER: 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 0 [Pendleton, SC 1800] In this latter record, we find that Meredith ROPER seems to be age 45 or more (b bef 1766), but it seems likely that he is MUCH OLDER than 45. * The last extract I had of Dave's database showed Meredith ROPER to be born about 1760 in St. Peter's Parish, New Kent. Of course there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER placing Meredith ROPER in New Kent. Perhaps this was selected because this was one of the few places that Meredith was KNOWN NOT TO HAVE LIVED. The assertion that Meredith was born about 1760 seems particularly preposterous given that Dave's article "The Mysterious Meredith/Meriday Roper in NC" begins by informing us that Meredith had certified that he was the chain carrier for a survey conducted in the Granville District on 11 Apr 1752. So basically, Dave would have us believe that Meredith began his surveying career EIGHT YEARS BEFORE Meredith was born. While this makes for an interesting story, kind of like Peter Pan, I do not believe that it is true that Meredith participated in and certified a survey as a chain carrier nine years before he was conceived and eight years before he was born. I certainly see how this ascription of Meredith ROPER's birth date makes him more "mysterious", but in my view, this story simply is NOT CREDIBLE. In my view, it is MORE LIKELY that Meredith would have acted as a chain carrier not only AFTER he was born, but also AFTER he learned to walk. So I am going to go out on a limb here to assert that Meredith was probably at least age FIVE (5) before he embarked upon his career as a chain carier. This would put Meredith's year of birth at about 1747. But even after a child learns to walk, chains can be heavy and dragging surveying chains through the thick underbrush of the pine and oak canopy of North Carolina seems to me to be something that one might call upon an older child to do. There is another problem with the assertion that Meredith was a chain carrier at age FIVE and this is the problem that the chain carriers need to be able to COUNT. Thus, it seems to me to be MORE LIKELY that Meredith ROPER would have been at least age 10 to 16 before he would be used as a chain carrier. That would further push Meredith ROPER's year of birth back to something more like 1736-42. Even this is mildly problematic, since the reason to LIST the names of the chain carriers on the survey is to identify the other persons who can CERTIFY and take responsibility for the survey accuracy. The surveyor usually operates the surveying transit and does the math. But the chain carriers have to trudge across the countryside at the azimuth specified (or to mark off corners for which a bearing or azimuth is taken) and in so doing, the chain carriers will need to COUNT the number of times that they measure off the chained distance in poles. Thus, even if one used a few bright minors to conduct some portion of the survey, one would probably NOT use the names of minors in certifying the result. Thus, while I completely dismiss that possiblity that Meredith conducted the survey eight years BEFORE he was born, I think that it is POSSIBLE, but UNLIKELY that Meredith ROPER might have been born as late as 1736-42, but that is would be far more likely that Meredith was already age 21 (b bef 1732) by the time he was working as a chain carrier in 1752. * In Dave's article, he states "A Charles Roper family of Dinwiddie Co. VA moved into Brunswick Co. VA in 1767. All of the records mentioned above are several years before this date, so it appears likely that the Ropers in Brunswick Co. and Northampton Co. NC prior to this date were Charles City Co. Ropers." But that isn't what happened at all. Charles ROPER and Ann Goodwyn ROPER seem to have settled in Dinwiddie, probably before the birth of their eldest son in 1742, where they remained seemingly throughout their lives. Charles purchased a parcel in Brunswick County, NC, just as son David ROPER reached majority, which parcel they soon sold. David ROPER then bought his own land. Charles' son William ROPER later settled adjacent to David ROPER near Hickory Run and Red Oak Creek just South of the Nottoway River, within easy walking distance from the ROPER plantation in Dinwiddie. David ROPER's twin sister Laura and her husband William MOORE also settled on adjacent property near Red Oak Creek. The parcel purchased by John ROPER, of Charles City County, in Brunswick, VA, decades earlier had been SOLD in its entirety and as far as can be ascertained from the records never actually OCCUPIED by John ROPER. Since Drury STITH was a neighbor of John ROPER's in Charles City County and Drury moved to Brunswick, VA, where he became the County Clerk, it seems plausible that Drury persuaded John ROPER to invest in some land there. There is NO EVIDENCE that Charles ROPER or any of his children ever lived in New Kent. There is NO EVIDENCE that any of Charles ROPER's children ever lived in Charles City County. There is some very thin evidence that might possibly connect Charles ROPER, of Dinwiddie, to John ROPER, of Charles City County. There is NO EVIDENCE directly connecting Charles ROPER to Meredith ROPER or connecting Meredith ROPER to either New Kent or Charles City. Any connection is simply FICTIONAL. * Next, we are told that Meredith ROPER was involved in the survey of property on Rattlesnake Creek on 13 Jan 1758. Once again, I am VERY DOUBTFUL that Meredit conducted yet another survey BEFORE his date of birth. This doesn't seem very realistic to me, though I will certainly admit that conducting all these surveys before he was born certainly DOES make Meredith "mysterious," which is the theme of the article. What I do not understand is WHY this piece would be published in a genealogical publication rather than an amateur science fiction or a fantasy journal. * Next, Dave mentions the appearance of Meredith ROPER as a participant in two other surveys conducted in the vicinity of Rattlesnake Creek in 1760, the year Dave tells us in his database taht Meredith ROPER was born in New Kent County. Again, no matter how much surveying experience Dave believes Meredith had BEFORE his birth, I simply do NOT find it to be credible that Meredith would have been out surveying before he learned to walk or count. * Dave tells us in the article that Meredith ROPER appeared on the 1768 Tax List of John Oliphant for Rowan County, in an area now covered by present Iredell Co. and Catawba Co. I haven't checked the geography, but assuming it to be correct, we are now presented with yet another challenge in respect of Meredith being born in 1760. The personal property tax lists consisted of "tithable" taxpayers subject to a head tax because they were already age 21 or more. A land tax list would be limited to owners of real property. Minors were not allowed to purchase and own real property in their own names. Therefore, the appearance of Meredith ROPER on the 1768 Rowan Tax List implicitly tells us that Meredith was born before 1748, a finding consistent with a more realistic view of the age at which one might also participate in surveys. * There is NO RECORD which actually shows Meredith ROPER marrying. There is NOT RECORD showing him to be residing in a place or deeding property, which deed as grantor reflects the existence of a wife. While the 1790 Census record is certainly consistent with the possilbity that Meredith ROPER, who by 1790 was probably at least about age 58, might have had two adult sons and another son under age 16, the data is equally consistent with the possiblity that Meredith might have NEVER MARRIED and that he was simply entertaining nephews or cousins in Rutherford or sharing a house with other farm laborers. Although it has been asserted that Meredith ROPER was married to a Lucinda KEITH and perhaps this is true, NO ONE has ever actually identified ANY EVIDENCE that such a marraige ever took place. * Dave closes his sketch about the "mysterious" Meredith ROPER with what he asserts is his lineage. I will repeat ONLY the first five generations: John Roper, Jr. b 1660 d abt 1750 Charles City Co. VA uncertain John Roper b 1708 New Kent Co. VA d 1784 Fauquier Co. VA uncertain David Roper b Charles City Co. VA d abt 1794 Caswell Co. NC m Sarah (In Burke Co. NC abt 1780-1792) somewhat uncertain James Roper b abt 1766 Orange Co. NC d 1853 Burke Co. NC Samuel Roper b 6 Jan 1806 Burke Co. NC d 22 Nov 1869 Cherokee Co. NC m Rebecca Flowers * What Dave describes as "Uncertain" I would describe at best as "fanciful," but is probably more accurately described as "fraudulent." The John ROPER Jr. (b abt 1660) is simply a FICTIONAL ANCESTOR INVENTED by Dave using a composite of disparate data. ANYONE claiming to be descneded from this FICTIONAL ROPER ancestor has a FRAUDULENT lineage. There is NO EVIDENCE that a John ROPER born in New Kent died in Fauqier, Virginia. This is also complete genealogical garbage. There is NO EVIDENCE connecting a David ROPER, of Burke County, to Charles City or to New Kent. This is simply a FANCIFUL or fraudulent ascription. Finally, the evidence that James ROPER is a son of David ROPER is also very thin, certainly NOT ENOUGH to support an honest ascription. Thus, what the honest genealogist does is admit that they have hit a "brick wall" and redouble their search for VALID, verifiable data, of which there remains an ABUNDANCE. One does NOT simply GUESS at possible relationships and then publish this fiction as fact. Doing so is dishonest and serves only to confuse and mislead others. * Now back to Meredith ROPER. Despite the complete ABSENCE of any evidence that Meredith ROPER had ANY SONS, you have identified Dave's "guesses". I will address only ONE. I challenge you to find ANY EVIDENCE that there ever existed a person named "Solomon Benjamin ROPER". Go look at the primary evidence for Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Then, you should carefully assess the evidence that ANY of the others shown to be children of Meredith ROPER are ascribed based upon any valid primary evidence. Show me a valid case for ANY person to be a child of Meredith ROPERs. I doubt you can make a persuasive case, but I am willing to hear it. * In another thread, you asked WHY I assessed such a small possibility that John ROPER, of Pendleton, SC, was a son of Meredith ROPER. I believe that you can reasonably show that Meredith ROPER was born before 1732. I believe that the 1800 Census record supports a reasonably strong inference that Meredith ROPER was then married to the woman shown in the Census record to be age 45 or more (b bef 1766). This might have even been a Lucinda KEITH. But since we do NOT have a precise date of marriage and no one has ever bothered to make any investigation of the KEITH family, we have no basis to assess whether this was a marriage of long or short duration. You want to play this game of Dave's of beginning with GUESSES and then basing your next GUESS on your LAST GUESS. You have accepted Dave's "guesses." I completely REJECT THESE GUESSES, because they do NOT ADVANCE the family history but rather confuse and distort it. Dave is certainly entitled to write whatever fiction he likes. But it ought NOT be represented to be "fact." I would encourage you to DISCONNECT ANY CHILDREN you are showing for Meredith ROPER. Pick an age and year of birth range that you deem to be reasonable in respect of the actual extant evidence. Then, if Meredith ROPER's family history is of interest to you, embark upon an investigation to FIND the missing records which will firm up uncertainty. Look at the data that Dave has assembled and ask yourself what other data sources could fill in the voids. By publishing the fictional accounts as FACT, Dave has seriously set back ROPER genealogy by discouraging those who might have otherwise conducted an earnest and energetic search for the missing records. I do NOT ask for you to simply accept my constructions. When I am confident enough to make an ascription, I explain the basis and identify the supporting evidence and arguments. You can agree or disagree. When I am in doubt, I REFRAIN from making ascriptions and encourage others to also refrain from making premature conclusions. I also seek to expose new analysis and ascriptions to public review, scrutiny and critique. When I am wrong, people will sometimes quickly point out my errors. When there is doubt, it is better to defer reaching a conclusion and making an ascription. Sometimes, we will remain stuck on a particular connection for years or decades. But if we make an erroneous ascription, prematurely based upon thin or no evidence, we simply conceal the need for vigorous research and deceive others in ways that can really frustrate family history. Ultimately, we may NEVER get the ascription right when we introduce erroneous unsupported "facts" or assumptions. The bottom line is that I have NO INTEREST whatsoever in Dave's "guesses," and such guesses do not factor into my consideration or assessment at all. I am interested in the FACTS for which there is supporting primary evidence, the reasonable inferences that might be derived from such facts and the reasonable inferences about where else to look for the missing data. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1762.10/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Haywood Ansley ROPER is shown to have been the postmaster for Triune, Williamson County, TN, in 1866. See: Post-office Directory for 1866: Alphabetical List of Post-offices in the United States with the Names of Postmasters, edited by John Disturnell (NY: American News Company, 1866), page 175. http://books.google.com/books?id=EdZAAQAAMAAJ&dq=&pg=PA175#v=onepage&q=Roper&f=false George W. ROPER is shown to have been the postmaster of the post office for Germany, Warren County, Pennsylvania that same year (page 66). Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>