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/1939.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Transcriptions of SOME, but hardly even many and certainly NOT ALL Brunswick Deed Books have been posted at the U.S. Genweb Archives. Shown below are transcriptions of several Brunswick deeds from Deed Book 3 which bear on ROPERs and ROSSERs: 02 Jun 1748 Indenture made 2 June 1748, between John Roper of Charles City County and Thomas Twitty of Brunswick County, o5, 1200a, on South side of the Mill Creek being part of a Larger Tract containing 1601a which was granted to the sd. John Roper by Letters Patent dated 2 August 1745. Signed John Roper. Witnesses: William Linsey, Richard Russell, George Hagood. Court June 2, 1748, Indenture proved by oaths of Richard Russell, William Linsey & George Hagood. Brunswick, VA, Deed Book 3, Page 440. See: http://files.usgwarchives.net/va/brunswick/deeds/book3pt2.txt * * * 02 Jun 1748 Indenture made 2 June 1748, between John Roper of Charles City County and George Hagood of Brunswick County, o6-5 Shillings, 100a, on both sides of Bryrie Creek being part of a Larger Tract containing 1601a which was granted to the said Roper by Letters Patent dated 2 August 1745. Signed John Roper. Witnesses: Thomas Twitty, William Linsey, John Roberts. Court June 2, 1748, Indenture proved by oaths of Thomas Twitty, William Linsey & John Roberts. Brunswick, VA, Deed Book 3, Page 442. See: http://files.usgwarchives.net/va/brunswick/deeds/book3pt2.txt * * * 02 Jun 1748 Indenture made 2 June 1748, between John Roper of Charles City County and Edward Going of Brunswick County, o5, 100a, on South side of the Mill Creek, being part of a Larger Tract containing 1601a granted to John Roper by Letters Patent dated 2 August 1745. Signed John Roper. Witnesses: Thomas Twitty, William Linsey, John Roberts (bhm). Court June 2, 1748, Indenture proved by oaths of Thomas Twitty, William Linsey and John Roberts. See: Brunswick, VA, Deed Book 3, Page 444. http://files.usgwarchives.net/va/brunswick/deeds/book3pt2.txt * * * 03 May 1749 Indenture made 3 May 1749, between George Hagood of Brunswick County, and Thomas Twitty of same, 5 Shillings, 100a, being part of a Larger Tract formerly granted to John Roper by Letters Patent dated 1 August 1745, on both side Bryery Creek. Signed George Hagood. Court June 1, 1749, Indenture acknowledged by George Hagood. Brunswick, VA, Deed Book 3, Page 560. See: http://files.usgwarchives.net/va/brunswick/deeds/book3pt2.txt * * * 14 Dec 1749 Indenture made 14 December 1748, between Thomas Cook of St. Andrew Parish, Brunswick County, and John Rosser of Albemarle Parish, Surry County, o55, 290a, on South side of Maherrin River. Signed Thomas Cook (bhm). Witnesses: John Tomlinson, George Rives, Henry Cook (bhm). Court June 27, 1749, Indenture and Memorandum proved by the oaths of John Tomlinson, George Rives, and Henry Cook. Brunswick, VA, Deed Book 3, Page 575. See: http://files.usgwarchives.net/va/brunswick/deeds/book3pt4.txt * * * * * NOTE 1: Each of these deeds EXCEPT FOR the last seems to pertain to a Brunswick parcel originally Patented by John ROPER and previously discussed in other posts. NOTE 2: The latter deed seems to reflect a deed in favor of a John ROSSER rather than a ROPER and places this John ROSSER in Albemarle Parish, Surry County at 14 Dec 1748. There is much evidence that there were later both ROPERs and ROSSERs in Brunswick County, Virginia, creating vexing issues for researchers due to the persistent use of a Colonial script "ss" which looks very much like a "p". 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, Johnson, Hagood, Divitly, Going, Jones, Smith, Burgess, Howerton, Bull, Trotter, Biggs, Quarles, Lattimore, Coleman Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1939.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Before embarking on a serial exposition of my own Brunswick, Virginia, Notes, I want to call attention to two other soruces of information about the Brunswick Deed records. The first of these, Dr. L. David ROPER's previous abstracts of the Brunswick, Virginia, deed records is the subject of this post. Some years ago, Dave made a personal investigation of the Brunswick deed records, inspecting the underlying images and making notes as to what he found. These notes have been posted on Dave's page "The Second Century of Ropers in Virginia (1700-1799)" for a number of years, probably more than a decade. Here is what Dave previously collected from his investigation: "Brunswick County deeds for the 1700s: Some records for Rosser have been interpreted as for Roper. I have personally inspected these records and judge them to be Roper John Roper of Charles City Co. to John Johnson of Brunswick Co. deed 200 acres 1746 3-254 This Indenture made this ninth day of November in the year of our Lord God one Thousand seven hundred & forty six between John Roper of the County of Charles City of the one part and John Johnson of the County of Brunswick of the other part Witnesseth that the said John Roper for and in Consideration of the sum of Twenty pounds Current Money of Virginia to him in hand paid by the s'd John Johnson the Receipt where of he doth hereby acknowledge of him self therewith fully and entirely satisfied hath granted Bargained sold aliened. Released & Confirmed and by these presents for him self and his heirs and assignes for Ever one Certain parcell of Land Containing Two hundred acres more or less lying & being in the County of Brunswick it being part of a larger tract of sixteen hundred and one acres which was granted to the said Roper by Latters pattent dated at Williamsburg the first day of! August one thousand seven hundred and forty five which s'd Two hundred be the same moore or less lying & being in the afores. County of Brunswick on the North side of bryery Creek... John Roper of Charles City Co. to Thomas Divitly of Brunswick Co. deed 1200 acres 1748 3-440 John Roper of Charles City Co. to George Hagood of Brunswick Co. deed 100 acres 1748 3-442 John Roper of Charles City Co. to Edward Going of Brunswick Co. deed 100 acres 1748 3-444 Richard Roper from John Hunt deed 140 acres 1765 8-6 Charles Roper of Bath Parish in Dinwiddie Co. from Hugh Williams & wife deed 200 acres south side of Nottaway River 1767 9-67 Richard Roper of Northampton Co., NC to Lewis Jackson deed 200 acres 200 acres Rocky River 1770 10-44 Charles Roper & wife Ann of Bath Parish in Dinwiddie Co. to Robert Read deed where David Roper, son of Charles Roper, now lives 1771 10-402 William Roper of Bath Parish in Dinwiddie Co. from Jesse Cristie & wife deed 1773 11-71 David Roper from Jesse Jones & wife deed 188 acres 1774 11-225 David Roper & wife Mary to James Jones deed 187 acres 1775 11-417 William Roper & wife Sarah to Richard Smith deed 50 acres 1777 12-214 William Roper from William Burgess & wife deed 150 acres 1777 12-215 David Roper from James Jones & wife deed 1778 13-91 David Roper from James Howerton & wife deed 1778 Wit: William Roper 13-94 Charles Roper of Bath Parish in Dinwiddie Co. from Thomas Haley & wife deed 1778 13-96 William Roper & wife Sarah to David Roper deed 61 acres 1778 13-98 David Roper & wife Mary to Thomas Bull deed 1778 13-134 David Roper from Isham Trotler & c deed 1783 13-212 David Roper from Joel Biggs & wife deed 50 acres 1785 14-128 David Roper & wife Mary to James Quarles deed 61.5 acres 1786 Wit: William Roper 14-188 David Roper & wife Mary to John Lattimore deed 56 acres 1788 14-345 William Roper to Joel Roper of Dinwiddie Co. deed 100 acres 1792 Wit: Benjamin Roper, David Roper 15-182 Joel Roper & wife Lucy of Dinwiddie Co. to James Quarles deed 1792 Wit: Benjamin Roper, David Roper 15-231 David Roper Senr from Richard Coleman deed 61.5 acres 1793 15-438 William Roper from James Quarles deed 1793 Wit: David Roper 15-439 William Roper to Charles Roper's Exors D.T. Joel Roper of Dinwiddie Co. deed 100 acres 1793 15-441 David Roper & wife Mary to Richard Coleman deed 1797 16-403 & 405" See: http://www.roperld.com/rva17.htm [Copied at Saturday, 16 Aug 2014] 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/1939/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Over the years, I have accumulated quite a few notes from my research of the ROPER family, especially in Virginia, North Carolina and Maryland. Many of these notes or hand written or spread across a number of digital files in various formats. Sometimes, these notes take the form of photocopies of either primary records or secondary compilations, with or without notes interlineated in the margins. When I first set out to investigate the ROPER family, my note taking was far less formal and thorough. Later, I found that I had sometimes failed to do a good job of recording the precise original source from which the notes were taken or that I had failed to note sources I had consulted. In my later investigations, I became somewhat more organized and thorough. Beginning about 2010, I embarked upon a new procedure as to copies of things with somewhat mixed results. Instead of making photocopies of pages from secondary sources, I instead used my Nikon camera to take digital images. This allowed me to make far more copies at more nominal cost, but also created a bit of an organizational and post-processing nightmare that I hadn't fully anticipated or budgetted the time to resolve. The photographs rather than photocopies were of somewhat uneven quality, due to variations in lighting and steadiness of my hand. The best of these were far better than the photocopies. The worst were far worse than the photocopies and sometimes unreadable. This created some additional unevenness in data collection and recordkeeping since one could usually instantly see when a photocopy had come out badly, but this was often less apparent with a photograph. My camera was taking fairly high resolution .jpg images. But these images, as individual photos, are far less easy to work with than a compilation of notes in an Adobe Acrobat document. Thus, post processing of the images required conversion from .jpg to Adobe Acrobat format, lacing the individual photos back into a single comprehensive file with an appropriate and intuitive file name and running of optical character recognition (OCR) software to make each document text searchable. Generally, in respect of any secondary source consulted that seemed to be an intuitive and relevant place to look for ROPER records, I looked in the Index for at least ROPER, RAPER and ROSSER records (because records are sometimes mistranscribed). I also looked for select other surnames which were seemingly relevant to the place and time period covered by the secondary source. I took great care to photograph the cover, title page and relevant index pages as well as those few pages in each volume which seemed to relate to the most relevant records I found. I also endeavored to take images of Preface and Introductory material which explained and gave context to the abstracted material, something that I had previously done much more sparingly in previous decades when I was paying $0.10, $0.25 or $0.50 per page for photocopies. This thoroughness also meant that I was obtaining FAR MORE pages than previously with photocopies and this vastly increased the amount of time necessary for post-processing of my notes into a more coherent, convenient and usable form. I spent several weeks at the Virginia State Library, the North Carolina State Library and the Maryland Archives in late summer and early Autumn 2010. I consulted hundreds of secondary sources and have thousands of images. Unfortunately, soon after this genealogical excursion I found myself too busy to do the necessary post-processing follow up with my new digital archive of ROPER family information. While I endeavored to push some of the more significant findings directly online to this Message Board, in many instances I was working quickly simply obtaining and digitally archiving what I had found without a great deal of analysis. There were several topics that were the focus of my investigation and I spent the greatest amount of time studying the records which were relevant to these inquiries, but in respect of records which probably related to other branches of the family, I very often simply made digital photographic COPIES intending to return to the material more deliberately later. Overall, what I found in respect of my new approach to notetaking and recordkeeping was that I never seemed to catch up in terms of post-processing and transcription. The digital copies are thus mostly in an incomplete state of post-processing, making the material difficult to reference and use by me and impossible to use, understand and appreciate by anyone else. The burden of post-processing is made somewhat heavier by my preference to study, analyze and understand the raw data as I am posting it, giving the data better context. This thread is intended as a collection point for the posting and discussion of some of my notes relating to the ROPER families resident in Brunswick, Virginia, mostly before 1800. In the interests of pushing more raw content out faster, I will be somewhat lighter with analysis as to what this data may MEAN. * I want to add an additional caution as to the limits of my effort, as well as appropriate follow through by those with a keen interest in the Brunswick ROPER families. It is important to understand that these ROPER are NOT MY BRANCH of the family and despite a reasonably thorough consultation of the SECONDARY SOURCES for Brunswick, Virginia, Brunswick was NOT a focus of my research. Therefore, while I took notes of ABSTRACTS of underlying records, I DID NOT CONSULT THE UNDERLYING PRIMARY RECORDS. SOMEONE WITH A KEEN INTEREST IN THIS FAMILY NEEDS TO OBTAIN, TRANSCRIBE AND POST THE RECORDS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE ABSTRACTS. The good news for other researchers is that I have made this VERY EASY FOR YOU. You will find in respect of my later notes that I have been very thorough in identifying the source and showing sufficient information to follow up and obtain the records cited. 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, Quarles Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1859.6.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: An almost complete transcription of the 04 Dec 1785 Brunswick Deed from David and Mary ROPER To James QUARLES appears at the U.S. Genweb Archive: "This Indenture made this twenty fourth Day of December 1785 BETWEEN David Roper & Mary Roper his wife of the County of Brunswick of the one part and James Quarles Junior of the other Part . . . for and in consideration of the sum of fifty pounds twelve shillings . . . doth grant, bargain, sell, alien, enfeoff & absolutely confirm unto the said James Quarles Junior . . . a Certain tract or parcel of Land in the County of Brunswick containing by estimation sixty one & an half acres . . . BEGINNING at a corner shrub oak on Peters's line thence South by a line of marked trees to a corner Red oak on John Wilson's line, thence along the said Wilson's line to shrub oak on William Roper's line, thence along the said Roper's line to a corner Pine on Feilds's line, thence along the said Feilds's line to the BEGINNING . . . Signed by David Roper and Mary Roper and witnessed by William Roper, William Moore (his mark), and Arad Welton. Brunswick County Court the 24th April 1786. This In! denture was acknowledged by David Roper a partie thereto & Ordered to be Recorded. Deed Book 14, page 188." See: http://files.usgwarchives.net/va/brunswick/deeds/db14-200.txt 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, Meredith, Grigg, Chambers Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/518.6/mb.ashx Message Board Post: An abstract of the marriage record of James A. MEREDITH and Salome ROPER appears within the Southside Virginian, Volume 3, No.2 (January 1985) at page 61: https://archive.org/stream/southsidevirgini3198485#page/61/mode/1up/search/Roper The abstract shows the marriage (or bond) to be dated May 3, 1864. James A. MEREDITH is shown to be age 24, born and resident in Dinwiddie, with parents Charles W. MEREDITH and Mary T. CHAMBERS. James MEREDITH is shown to be a soldier. The abstract erroneously shows Salome's given name to be Salenie A. E. ROPER. Salome is shown to be age 16, born Dinwiddie and resident of Dinwiddie. Her parents are expressly identified as Joseh ROPER and Elizabeth GRIGG. 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, Butler Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1932.14/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: In considering the possibilities and likelihoods as to the disposition of Charles and Elizabeth (Butler) ROPER's son Joseph ROPER, it occurs to me to also mention alternative paradigms presented by a disposition towards an intergenerational rule of primogenitor versus gavelkind. Of course, primogenitor was the predominant English rule for centuries with vast landed estates mostly kept intact and passed from generation to generation with descent to each barony passing to the eldest son. One place in England where there was an early deviation from this rule was in Kent, where a different rule of gavelkind prevailed. In America, the rule of primogenitor was abandoned from a relatively early time. One unique characteristic of Colonial America that tended to discourage over-reliance on a primogenitor rule was an abundance of land, which was coupled with Colonial policies that made settlement and occupation of larger areas, both along the coast and in the interior attractive. As sons came of age, rather than lingering on the father's plantation, policy and tradition tended to favor setting out to seek one's one fortune. This, in turn came to favor a practical tradition in some families of passing the father's legacy plantation not to the eldest son, but rather to the youngest. This seemingly can be seen to an extent in the family of Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER with almost all of the elder sons setting out to find their fortunes elsewhere, but with the youngest son Joel ROPER (b 26 Jun 1766) seemingly coming into possession of his father's plantation. Charles ROPER, Jr. (b 19 Apr 1758), lingered in Dinwiddie. It is unclear whether Charles ROPER, Jr., had acquired his own separate plantation in Dinwiddie during his father's lifetime independently, with his father's help or with the help of an indulgent father-in-law (or by way of an inheritance in favor of Elizabeth BUTLER). It matters little as to my core point, as Charles ROPER, Jr., apparently had a separate, independent plantation well before his father's death. I have seen numerous other similar legacies in favor of the younger or youngest sons in the ROPER family including in my branch of the family. When David ROPER (b 1744, d 1808), of Charles City County, died, his eldest sons were already abroad elsewhere and David bequeathed his Charles City County plantation to younger sons George ROPER and David ROPER, Jr. (my ancestor). The latter, though, elected to move into Richmond, where he worked in a bank, assisted in the management of an estate and served as the pastor for the Second Baptist Church, selling his interest in the Chickahominy plantation. I mention the alternative traditions of disposition of family real property by way of a cautionary note as to WHERE to look for Charles ROPER's son Joseph ROPER. You have suggested that Joseph ROPER might have settled nearby and have identified Nancy ROPER, of Dinwiddie, as a plausible candidate to be Joseph ROPER's widow. While this is not an unreasonable argument and cannot be refuted without reference to facts not yet examined and not in evidence (e.g. the Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax Lists and the Dinwiddie probate records), an examination of the model of Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER's sons might tend to suggest otherwise. Sons David ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742) and William ROPER (b 26 Jun 1753) seem to have settled first in adjacent Brunswick County, possibly near an uncle or cousins, and then seemed to move to the South Carolina frontier (Edgefield). Son Jesse ROPER (b 31 May 1751) also seemed to settle a little farther away in Northampton, NC, and then migrated to Cumberland, NC, South Carolina, and Mecklenburg, NC. Some secondary sources seem to indicate that Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER's son Josiah ROPER (b 26 Apr 1760) might have settled in Brunswick, Virginia, as well. Possibly of relevance to our inquiry into Joseph and Martha ROPER, of Lincoln, Tennessee, some secondary sources indicate that Josiah ROPER married a Patsy WILSON, possilby a Martha WILSON nicknamed "Patsy", on 23 Dec 1785 in Brunswick. I am NOT AWARE of any primary evidence supporting this assertion, but it is interesting if Joseph and Martha ROPER, of Lincoln, TN, are older rather than younger and certain bears some further investigation. There seems to be essentially no information about the disposition and whereabouts of Charles ROPER's son Allen ROPER (b 03 Apr 1756). Perhaps Allen died young. Perhaps Allen had more than one given name. The WILL of Charles ROPER and/or Charles ROPER, Jr., would seem to be of enormous significance to any investigation of this ROPER family, but while a large portion of the family, especially the branches seated in upper South Carolina, continue to bemoan the dearth of evidence everyone is either TOO LAZY or TOO DISHONEST to even look at the extant Dinwiddie probate records. Overall, my core point is simply that to the extent that Goodwyn ROPER was the youngest son of Charles and Elizabeth Butler ROPER, it may very well be that Joseph ROPER set out to seek his own fortune. Where that adventure took him remains unclear. Maybe he ventrued to North Carolina, maybe South Carolina, perhaps Kentucky or Tennessee. But this also bears on another different ASSUMPTION you seem to make in support of your ascription of Nancy ROPER as Joseph ROPER's widow and this is the ASSUMPTION that Joseph ROPER PREDECEASED his father Charles ROPER. While it is certainly true that the disposition of Charles ROPER's Dinwiddie plantation in favor of Joseph W. ROPER might seem to suggest that Joseph ROPER was "out of the picture", this does NOT imply that Joseph ROPER was DEAD. To the contrary, there is evidence that Goodwyn ROPER lingered in Dinwiddie. He may have been the INTENDED beneficiary of the Charles ROPER plantation. Then, Goodwyn ROPER DIED YOUNG, perhaps altering the intended disposition of the plantation. If Joseph ROPER was then still LIVING, but elsewhere, it might be impractical or less desirable to uproot his family to return to Dinwiddie. And thus the passing of the plantation to a member of the next generation might have been the preferred strategy. There is yet one other clue which you have cited in your argument that I think you may be MISREADING. The letter you cite stated: "Cousin Joe is in good health and BOUGHT the land the old lady lived on." Cousin Joe did NOT INHERIT the Charles ROPER plantation, he BOUGHT IT. The extant probate records may show not only the OTHER Estate purchasers, but also the DISTRIBUTION of the proceeds of the Estate to various legatees or heirs. Probate records have ALWAYS BEEN the primary means of doing genealogy. Only since the widespread acceptance within the ROPER family of fraudulent, unsupported claims by the Fictioanlists have these traditional tools come to be IGNORED or suppressed. Nancy ROPER certainly MIGHT have been Joseph ROPER's widow. She also might have been the widow of Allen ROPER or any other of a number of Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER's grandsons. The Tax Lists and the probate records are likely to tell. Until someone from this family takes an interest in FACTS instead of fiction, they will continue to wring their hands and wonder where they came from. 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, Haygood Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1938.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Joshua ROPER, of Lincoln, Tennessee, has been ascribed by many as a son of Joseph and Martha ROPER. There seems to be strong cimcumstantial evidence that Joshua ROPER emerged from the household of Joseph and Martha ROPER and this ascription may be correct. However, I would also note that the Joshua ROPER's eldest son is named George Thomas ROPER. The second son is named James Bracken ROPER. Only the third son is named Joseph ROPER, as further shown below. 1850 CENSUS Joshua ROPER is enumerated at age 42 residing in Lincoln, TN, with what seems to be a wife and six children. The wife's name is very hard to make out. The name is shown as Durana in the Ancestry Index and superficially one can hardly argue with this transcription. Even so, there seems to be some other indication that the wife's name was Loucena or Lourena and she may have had the middle name Jane. The children shown in the 1850 Census record are much more readily identifiable. Joshua ROPER's 1850 household includes: Joshua ROPER, age 42, Male, Farmer, R.E. $300, born Tennessee Lurana ROPER, age 30, Female, born Tennessee George ROPER, age 9, Male, born Tennessee Martha ROPER, age 6, Female, born Tennessee Milly ROPER, age 6, Female, born Tennessee James ROPER, age 4, Male, born Tennessee Joseph ROPER, age 3, Male, born Tennessee Elizabeth ROPER, age 1, Male, born Tennessee (Image 148 of 160 at the Ancestry.com presentation of the Census data for Subdivision 1, Lincoln County, TN) See: "United States Census, 1850," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MCDG-599 : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Joshua Roper, Lincoln county, Lincoln, Tennessee, United States; citing family 1479, NARA microfilm publication M432. Joshua ROPER appears on the SAME Census page as Bracken ROPER, age 44, born in NORTH CAROLINA. * * * 1860 CENSUS Joshua ROPER, age 52, again appears in Lincoln, TN, in 1860. Joshua ROPER is again shown to be born in Tennessee. In 1860, the eldest female within the household is shown to be Jane, age 42. Jane is also shown to be born in Tennessee. The names of the children slightly vary, though the ages are generally consistent. Here is the Joshua ROPER household in 1860: Joshua ROPER, age 52, Male, Farmer, Pers. Estate $300, R.E. $400, born Tenn. Jane ROPER, age 42, Female, born Tenn. Thomas ROPER, age 19, Male, born Tenn. Martha ROPER, age 18, Female, born Tenn. Milley ROPER, age 16, Female, born Tenn. Bracken ROPER, age 14, Male, born Tenn. Joseph ROPER, age 12, Male, born Tenn. Elizabeth ROPER, age 10, Female, born Tenn. Nancy ROPER, age 8, Female, born Tenn. John ROPER, age 7, Male, born Tenn. William ROPER, age 5, Male, born Tenn. See: "United States Census, 1860," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/M8TN-4RX : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Joshua Roper, District No 17, Lincoln, Tennessee, United States; citing "1860 U.S. Federal Census - Population," Fold3.com; p. 6, household ID 36, NARA microfilm publication M653; FHL microfilm 805261. It seems reasonable to infer that the "George" shown in the 1850 enumeration is the SAME child shown as "Thomas" in 1860 and that the "James" shown in the 1850 Census is the SAME child shown as "Bracken" in 1860. Whether these children are George Thomas or Thomas George and James Bracken or Bracken James is less clear without reference to other records, though in the latter instance the name James BRACKEN is somewhat more consistent with the naming to honor the BRACKEN of the given name James. * * * 1870 CENSUS In 1870, Joshua ROPER is again enumerated residing in Lincoln County, Tennessee, at age 62, as "J. J. ROPER". Joshua is again shown to be born in Tennessee. Joshua ROPER's 1870 household consisted of: Joshua ROPER, age 62, Male, White, Farmer, Pers. Estate $900, R.E. $600, Born TN Lou ROPER, age 53, Female, White, K House, Born TN Joseph ROPER, age 23, Male, White, Farmer, Born TN Nancy ROPER, age 18, Female, White, At Home, Born TN John ROPER, age 15, Male, White, At Home, Born TN William ROPER, age 13, Male, White, At Home, Born TN Margaret ROPER, age 18, Female, White, "Sewing", Born TN See: "United States Census, 1870," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MDDD-FR1 : accessed 15 Aug 2014), J J Roper, Tennessee, United States; citing p. 24, family 179, NARA microfilm publication M593, FHL microfilm 000553043. Note that Margaret is OUT OF THE AGE SEQUENCE OF THE OTHER CHILDREN AND DOES NOT CONFORM TO ANY OF THE CHILDREN IN THE 1860 ENUMERATION. This MIGHT BE the Margaret ROPER enumerated in the 1850 Census of James and Margaret ROPER, in Monroe, TN, and again appearing in the 1860 Census enumeration of the family of Joseph McLEMORE in Roane County, TN, though this Margaret is shown to be slightly younger. Immedaitely adjacent to and following Joshua ROPER's 1870 Census record are two additional ROPER households. First is the household of what seems to be "C.T. ROPER", age 30. This seems likely to be the son identified as George and later Thomas. This household consists of: C.T. ROPER, age 30, Male, White, Farmer, Pers. Estate $700, Real Estate $400, Born TN Elizabeth ROPER, age 27, Female, White, At Home, Born TN Frances ROPER, age 4, Female, White, At Home, Born TN Next is the household of Emaline ROPER, age 40: Emaline ROPER, age 40, Female, White, At Home, Pers. Estate $400, R.E. $300, Born TN Elizabeth ROPER, age 20, Female, White, At Home, born TN Wm. ROPER, age 10, Male, White, F. Labor, born TN Sarah ROPER, age 14, Female, White, At Home, born TN Winee ROPER, age 10, Female, White, At Home, born TN Margaret ROPER, age 8, Female, White, At Home, born TN Allace [sic] ROPER, age 4, Female, White, At Home, born TN See: "United States Census, 1880," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MD7P-DK8 : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Jasua Roper, District 17, Lincoln, Tennessee, United States; citing sheet 203B, NARA microfilm publication T9. Emaline ROPER appears to be the widow of Bracken ROPER. See my related post: "Bracken ROPER (b 31 Jan 1806? - NC, d 25 Sep 1866 - Lincoln, TN)" (15 Aug 2014 1:50PM GMT) http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1938.1/mb.ashx * * * 1880 CENSUS The 1880 Census data presents a bit of a paradox. BOTH Joshua and Lorena ROPER are shown on the 1880 Census enumeration, however each of their names is then interlineated with the indication "Dead". Then, BOTH also appear within the 1880 Mortality Schedule. The 1880 record shows the following data: Joshua ROPER, White, Male, age 72, Married, Mechanic, born Tenn, Father born Tenn, Mother born Tenn. Lorena ROPER, White, Female, age 63, Wife, born Tenn, Father born Tenn, Mother born Tenn. See: The Census schedule is dated 15 Jun 1880. The record immediately following the interlineated records of Joshua and Lorena ROPER is that of James HOLLOWAY, White, Male, age 24, Single, Works on Farm, born Tenn., Father born Tenn., Mother born in Tenn. I will further discuss James HOLLOWAY in a future post. Also on this Census page are the families of George T. ROPER, age 39, John H. ROPER, age 24, and William ROPER, age 23. * * * 1880 MORTALITY SCHEDULE Joseph ROPER appears within the 1880 Mortality Schedule showing him to have died in February of acute bronchitis. He is shown to be age 73 and to have been born in Tennessee to parents each born in Tennessee, though the latter information about his parent's birthplace is somewhat suspect. The clear intention of the Mortality Schedule was to capture ONE YEAR of mortality ENDING on May 31, 1880. Thus, IF the enumerators were properly following instructions, the ONLY February mortality returns would have been from 1880. It is rather bizarre that the Census enumerator visited this Lincoln neighborhood on June 15, 1880, and collected the information shown for Joseph and Lorena ROPER AFTER THEY WERE ALREADY DEAD. Perhaps some written survey had been previously distributed which was then later collected. * * * Joshua ROPER's Location in 1840 Joshua ROPER does NOT appear separately as a head of household in the 1840 Census when he would seem to have been about age 32. However, it seems most likely that Joshua ROPER was enumerated within the household of Bracken ROPER: Bracken ROPER: 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- NO SLAVES [Lincoln, TN, 1840] This record reflects the presence of two males age 30 to 29 (b abt 1801-10) and one male age 20 to 29 (b abt 1811-20), as well as a female age 20 to 29 (b abt 1811-20) residing within Bracken ROPER's household. THERE ARE NO CHILDREN IN THIS HOUSEHOLD IN 1840. (Image 175 of 204 for Lincoln, TN, at the Ancestry.com presentation of the 1840 Census data) * Martha ROPER is enumerated on the immediately previous Census page with a young man age 20 to 29 residing within her household: Martha ROPER: 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- NO SLAVES [Lincoln, TN, 1840] Martha ROPER is shown to be age 60 to 69 in 1840 (b abt 1771-80). * * * Similarly, it seems likely that Joshua ROPER was also enumerated living within Martha ROPER's household in 1830: Martha ROPER: 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- NO SLAVES [Lincoln, TN, 1830] (Image 161 of 206 for Lincoln, TN, at the Ancestry.com presentation of the 1830 Census data) * * * Joshua ROPER would also seem to possibly be one of the two elder boys enumerated in Joseph ROPER's household in 1820: Joseph ROPER: 3 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 3 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Lincoln, TN 1820] * * * * * Joshua ROPER's son George T. ROPER seems to be interred at the Roper Cemetery in Dellrose, Lincoln County. His grave marker shown him to have been born on 18 Jan 1841 and to have died on 07 Jul 1900. See: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=70... * Joshua ROPER's son James Bracken ROPER seems to be the head of household enumerated as Brack ROPER (b Aug 1846 - TN) in the 1900 U.S. Census residing in Civil District 17, Lincoln, TN. See: "United States Census, 1900," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MSC6-ZCT : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Brack Roper, Civil District 17, Lincoln, Tennessee, United States; citing sheet 5B, family 90, NARA microfilm publication T623, FHL microfilm 1241584. * Secondary sources show specific dates of birth for EACH of Joshua ROPER's children, suggesting the possiblity that there is an extant Family Bible for this branch of the ROPER family. IF someone knows the whereabouts and contents of such a Bible, I would appreciate learning of it. Secondary sources also show specific dates of birth and death for Joshua ROPER. This Joshua is shown to have been born on 12 Jan 1808. Joshua ROPER is shown to have died on 09 Feb 1880. Usually, I now refrain from reporting secondary data of this sort without some indication of the primary record support for the assertions. However, Joshua ROPER is consistently shown as the SAME AGE PROGRESSION in EVERY Census: 42 [1850], 52 [1860], 62 [1870], and 72 [1880]. Only the mortality schedule gives an anomalous age (73). The implicit year of birth of 1808 is also consistent with the 1820, 1830 and 1840 Census records or Joseph ROPER, Martha ROPER and Bracken ROPER, respectively. The date of death given by the secondary sources is also consistent with with the 1880 Mortality Schedule, which gives the SAME month. IF Joshua ROPER is Joseph and Martha ROPER's son, his place of birth and birthdate would seem to establish that Joseph and Martha migrated to Tennessee before 12 Jan 1808. Since it would probably be UNLIKELY that a young couple would migrated to a wilderness location in the winter or in the last weeks of a pregnancy, it is somewhat more likely that Joseph and Martha would have been in Tennessee by the Autumn of 1807. 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, Haywood Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1938.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Joshua ROPER, of Lincoln, Tennessee, has been ascribed by many as a son of Joseph and Martha ROPER. There seems to be strong cimcumstantial evidence that Joshua ROPER emerged from the household of Joseph and Martha ROPER and this ascription may be correct. However, I would also note that the Joshua ROPER's eldest son is named George Thomas ROPER. The second son is named James Bracken ROPER. Only the third son is named Joseph ROPER, as further shown below. 1850 CENSUS Joshua ROPER is enumerated at age 42 residing in Lincoln, TN, with what seems to be a wife and six children. The wife's name is very hard to make out. The name is shown as Durana in the Ancestry Index and superficially one can hardly argue with this transcription. Even so, there seems to be some other indication that the wife's name was Loucena or Lourena and she may have had the middle name Jane. The children shown in the 1850 Census record are much more readily identifiable. Joshua ROPER's 1850 household includes: Joshua ROPER, age 42, Male, Farmer, R.E. $300, born Tennessee Lurana ROPER, age 30, Female, born Tennessee George ROPER, age 9, Male, born Tennessee Martha ROPER, age 6, Female, born Tennessee Milly ROPER, age 6, Female, born Tennessee James ROPER, age 4, Male, born Tennessee Joseph ROPER, age 3, Male, born Tennessee Elizabeth ROPER, age 1, Male, born Tennessee (Image 148 of 160 at the Ancestry.com presentation of the Census data for Subdivision 1, Lincoln County, TN) See: "United States Census, 1850," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MCDG-599 : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Joshua Roper, Lincoln county, Lincoln, Tennessee, United States; citing family 1479, NARA microfilm publication M432. Joshua ROPER appears on the SAME Census page as Bracken ROPER, age 44, born in NORTH CAROLINA. * * * 1860 CENSUS Joshua ROPER, age 52, again appears in Lincoln, TN, in 1860. Joshua ROPER is again shown to be born in Tennessee. In 1860, the eldest female within the household is shown to be Jane, age 42. Jane is also shown to be born in Tennessee. The names of the children slightly vary, though the ages are generally consistent. Here is the Joshua ROPER household in 1860: Joshua ROPER, age 52, Male, Farmer, Pers. Estate $300, R.E. $400, born Tenn. Jane ROPER, age 42, Female, born Tenn. Thomas ROPER, age 19, Male, born Tenn. Martha ROPER, age 18, Female, born Tenn. Milley ROPER, age 16, Female, born Tenn. Bracken ROPER, age 14, Male, born Tenn. Joseph ROPER, age 12, Male, born Tenn. Elizabeth ROPER, age 10, Female, born Tenn. Nancy ROPER, age 8, Female, born Tenn. John ROPER, age 7, Male, born Tenn. William ROPER, age 5, Male, born Tenn. See: "United States Census, 1860," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/M8TN-4RX : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Joshua Roper, District No 17, Lincoln, Tennessee, United States; citing "1860 U.S. Federal Census - Population," Fold3.com; p. 6, household ID 36, NARA microfilm publication M653; FHL microfilm 805261. It seems reasonable to infer that the "George" shown in the 1850 enumeration is the SAME child shown as "Thomas" in 1860 and that the "James" shown in the 1850 Census is the SAME child shown as "Bracken" in 1860. Whether these children are George Thomas or Thomas George and James Bracken or Bracken James is less clear without reference to other records, though in the latter instance the name James BRACKEN is somewhat more consistent with the naming to honor the BRACKEN of the given name James. * * * 1870 CENSUS In 1870, Joshua ROPER is again enumerated residing in Lincoln County, Tennessee, at age 62, as "J. J. ROPER". Joshua is again shown to be born in Tennessee. Joshua ROPER's 1870 household consisted of: Joshua ROPER, age 62, Male, White, Farmer, Pers. Estate $900, R.E. $600, Born TN Lou ROPER, age 53, Female, White, K House, Born TN Joseph ROPER, age 23, Male, White, Farmer, Born TN Nancy ROPER, age 18, Female, White, At Home, Born TN John ROPER, age 15, Male, White, At Home, Born TN William ROPER, age 13, Male, White, At Home, Born TN Margaret ROPER, age 18, Female, White, "Sewing", Born TN See: "United States Census, 1870," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MDDD-FR1 : accessed 15 Aug 2014), J J Roper, Tennessee, United States; citing p. 24, family 179, NARA microfilm publication M593, FHL microfilm 000553043. Note that Margaret is OUT OF THE AGE SEQUENCE OF THE OTHER CHILDREN AND DOES NOT CONFORM TO ANY OF THE CHILDREN IN THE 1860 ENUMERATION. This MIGHT BE the Margaret ROPER enumerated in the 1850 Census of James and Margaret ROPER, in Monroe, TN, and again appearing in the 1860 Census enumeration of the family of Joseph McLEMORE in Roane County, TN, though this Margaret is shown to be slightly younger. Immedaitely adjacent to and following Joshua ROPER's 1870 Census record are two additional ROPER households. First is the household of what seems to be "C.T. ROPER", age 30. This seems likely to be the son identified as George and later Thomas. This household consists of: C.T. ROPER, age 30, Male, White, Farmer, Pers. Estate $700, Real Estate $400, Born TN Elizabeth ROPER, age 27, Female, White, At Home, Born TN Frances ROPER, age 4, Female, White, At Home, Born TN Next is the household of Emaline ROPER, age 40: Emaline ROPER, age 40, Female, White, At Home, Pers. Estate $400, R.E. $300, Born TN Elizabeth ROPER, age 20, Female, White, At Home, born TN Wm. ROPER, age 10, Male, White, F. Labor, born TN Sarah ROPER, age 14, Female, White, At Home, born TN Winee ROPER, age 10, Female, White, At Home, born TN Margaret ROPER, age 8, Female, White, At Home, born TN Allace [sic] ROPER, age 4, Female, White, At Home, born TN See: "United States Census, 1880," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MD7P-DK8 : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Jasua Roper, District 17, Lincoln, Tennessee, United States; citing sheet 203B, NARA microfilm publication T9. Emaline ROPER appears to be the widow of Bracken ROPER. See my related post: "Bracken ROPER (b 31 Jan 1806? - NC, d 25 Sep 1866 - Lincoln, TN)" (15 Aug 2014 1:50PM GMT) http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1938.1/mb.ashx * * * 1880 CENSUS The 1880 Census data presents a bit of a paradox. BOTH Joshua and Lorena ROPER are shown on the 1880 Census enumeration, however each of their names is then interlineated with the indication "Dead". Then, BOTH also appear within the 1880 Mortality Schedule. The 1880 record shows the following data: Joshua ROPER, White, Male, age 72, Married, Mechanic, born Tenn, Father born Tenn, Mother born Tenn. Lorena ROPER, White, Female, age 63, Wife, born Tenn, Father born Tenn, Mother born Tenn. See: The Census schedule is dated 15 Jun 1880. The record immediately following the interlineated records of Joshua and Lorena ROPER is that of James HOLLOWAY, White, Male, age 24, Single, Works on Farm, born Tenn., Father born Tenn., Mother born in Tenn. I will further discuss James HOLLOWAY in a future post. Also on this Census page are the families of George T. ROPER, age 39, John H. ROPER, age 24, and William ROPER, age 23. * * * 1880 MORTALITY SCHEDULE Joseph ROPER appears within the 1880 Mortality Schedule showing him to have died in February of acute bronchitis. He is shown to be age 73 and to have been born in Tennessee to parents each born in Tennessee, though the latter information about his parent's birthplace is somewhat suspect. The clear intention of the Mortality Schedule was to capture ONE YEAR of mortality ENDING on May 31, 1880. Thus, IF the enumerators were properly following instructions, the ONLY February mortality returns would have been from 1880. It is rather bizarre that the Census enumerator visited this Lincoln neighborhood on June 15, 1880, and collected the information shown for Joseph and Lorena ROPER AFTER THEY WERE ALREADY DEAD. Perhaps some written survey had been previously distributed which was then later collected. * * * Joshua ROPER's Location in 1840 Joshua ROPER does NOT appear separately as a head of household in the 1840 Census when he would seem to have been about age 32. However, it seems most likely that Joshua ROPER was enumerated within the household of Bracken ROPER: Bracken ROPER: 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- NO SLAVES [Lincoln, TN, 1840] This record reflects the presence of two males age 30 to 29 (b abt 1801-10) and one male age 20 to 29 (b abt 1811-20), as well as a female age 20 to 29 (b abt 1811-20) residing within Bracken ROPER's household. THERE ARE NO CHILDREN IN THIS HOUSEHOLD IN 1840. (Image 175 of 204 for Lincoln, TN, at the Ancestry.com presentation of the 1840 Census data) * Martha ROPER is enumerated on the immediately previous Census page with a young man age 20 to 29 residing within her household: Martha ROPER: 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- NO SLAVES [Lincoln, TN, 1840] Martha ROPER is shown to be age 60 to 69 in 1840 (b abt 1771-80). * * * Similarly, it seems likely that Joshua ROPER was also enumerated living within Martha ROPER's household in 1830: Martha ROPER: 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- NO SLAVES [Lincoln, TN, 1830] (Image 161 of 206 for Lincoln, TN, at the Ancestry.com presentation of the 1830 Census data) * * * Joshua ROPER would also seem to possibly be one of the two elder boys enumerated in Joseph ROPER's household in 1820: Joseph ROPER: 3 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 3 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Lincoln, TN 1820] * * * * * Joshua ROPER's son George T. ROPER seems to be interred at the Roper Cemetery in Dellrose, Lincoln County. His grave marker shown him to have been born on 18 Jan 1841 and to have died on 07 Jul 1900. See: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=70602153 * Joshua ROPER's son James Bracken ROPER seems to be the head of household enumerated as Brack ROPER (b Aug 1846 - TN) in the 1900 U.S. Census residing in Civil District 17, Lincoln, TN. See: "United States Census, 1900," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MSC6-ZCT : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Brack Roper, Civil District 17, Lincoln, Tennessee, United States; citing sheet 5B, family 90, NARA microfilm publication T623, FHL microfilm 1241584. * Secondary sources show specific dates of birth for EACH of Joshua ROPER's children, suggesting the possiblity that there is an extant Family Bible for this branch of the ROPER family. IF someone knows the whereabouts and contents of such a Bible, I would appreciate learning of it. Secondary sources also show specific dates of birth and death for Joshua ROPER. This Joshua is shown to have been born on 12 Jan 1808. Joshua ROPER is shown to have died on 09 Feb 1880. Usually, I now refrain from reporting secondary data of this sort without some indication of the primary record support for the assertions. However, Joshua ROPER is consistently shown as the SAME AGE PROGRESSION in EVERY Census: 42 [1850], 52 [1860], 62 [1870], and 72 [1880]. Only the mortality schedule gives an anomalous age (73). The implicit year of birth of 1808 is also consistent with the 1820, 1830 and 1840 Census records or Joseph ROPER, Martha ROPER and Bracken ROPER, respectively. The date of death given by the secondary sources is also consistent with with the 1880 Mortality Schedule, which gives the SAME month. IF Joshua ROPER is Joseph and Martha ROPER's son, his place of birth and birthdate would seem to establish that Joseph and Martha migrated to Tennessee before 12 Jan 1808. Since it would probably be UNLIKELY that a young couple would migrated to a wilderness location in the winter or in the last weeks of a pregnancy, it is somewhat more likely that Joseph and Martha would have been in Tennessee by the Autumn of 1807. 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, Williams, Riley, Vickers, Cox, Walker Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1938.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: As mentioned within the previous post, Bracken ROPER is the eldest of the males seeming to emerge from Joseph and Martha ROPER's household beginning in 1836, as shown in the 1836 Tax List for Lincoln. There are probably some other Lincoln Tax Lists that can further inform our understanding. There seems unquestionably to be a reasonably ancient grave marker which shows Bracken ROPER's date of birth to be 31 Jan 1800 and his date of death to be 25 Sep 1866. The date of death seems likely to be trustworthy. There is no particular reason to doubt the month and day given for Bracken ROPER's birth. But the year given on the grave marker seems to be inconsistent with four of the five extant Census records which would otherwise seem to include him and is almost certainly contradicted by the 1800 Census record IF Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, is also the same Joseph ROPER who was enumerated in Pendleton, SC, in 1800. To quickly review, the Census data as it might apply to Bracken ROPER, we are first inclined to expect him to be one of the males shown in Joseph ROPER's 1820 Census record: Joseph ROPER: 3 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 3 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Lincoln, TN 1820] Joseph is shown in this record to be age 45 or more. The two eldest boys shown within Joseph ROPER's household are shown to be age 10 to 15 (b abt 1805-10). Thus, IF Bracken is Joseph ROPER's son and appears within this record, it seems UNLIKELY that he was born much before 1805. * We would next expect to find Bracken in Martha ROPER's household in 1830: Martha ROPER: 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- NO SLAVES [Lincoln, TN, 1830] The two eldest young men shown in this record are shown to be age 21 to 29 (b abt 1801-10). This too seems to be incompatible with Bracken being born as early as 1800. * In 1840, Bracken seems to emerge from Martha ROPER's household: Bracken ROPER: 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- NO SLAVES [Lincoln, TN, 1840] See: "United States Census, 1840," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XHRY-L9R : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Bracken Roper, Not Stated, Lincoln, Tennessee; citing "1840 United States Federal Census," Ancestry.com; p. 89, NARA microfilm publication M704, roll 531, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington D.C.; FHL microfilm 0024548. The two eldest males in this household are shown to be age 30 to 39 (b abt 1801-10). The only other male is even YOUNGER, age 20 to 29 (b abt 1811-20). There is some reason to suspect that the three males in this household might be Bracken, Joshua and Joseph ROPER. * * * In 1850, Bracken ROPER is again enumerated residing in Lincoln, TN: Bracken ROPER, age 44, Male, Farmer, R.E. $2,000, born NC Rosa ROPER, age 21, Female, born Ala Mary ROPER, age 6, Female, born Tenn. James ROPER, age 4, Male, born Tenn. Martha ROPER, age 2, Female, born Tenn. (Image 148 of 160 for Ancestry.com presentation of Subdivision 1, Lincoln TN, 1850 Census data) See: "United States Census, 1850," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MCDG-J34 : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Bracken Roper, Lincoln county, Lincoln, Tennessee, United States; citing family 1475, NARA microfilm publication M432. * * * In 1860, Bracken ROPER is again enumerated residing in Lincoln, TN [Indexed as RAPER]: Bracken ROPER, age 50, Male, Farmer, Pers. Estate $1,000, R.E. $800, born NC Emaline ROPER, age 32, Female, born Ala. Mary ROPER, age 15, Female, born Tenn. James ROPER, age 13, Male, born Tenn. Martha ROPER, age 11, Female, born Tenn. Elisa ROPER, age 10, Female, born Tenn. Emaline ROPER, age 8, Female, born Tenn. William ROPER, age 6, Male, born Tenn. Sarah ROPER, age 4, Female, born Tenn. Winney ROPER, age 1, Female, born Tenn. John WILLIAMS, age 18, Farmer, born Ala. Epp. TILERY, age 6, Male, Farmer, born Ala. Caroline WILLIAMS, age 49, Female, born SC (Image 17 of 23 for the Ancestry.com presentation of District 17, Lincoln, TN, Census data) See: "United States Census, 1860," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/M8TN-HBK : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Bracken Roper, District No 17, Lincoln, Tennessee, United States; citing "1860 U.S. Federal Census - Population," Fold3.com; p. 16, household ID 109, NARA microfilm publication M653; FHL microfilm 805261. * * * 1870 CENSUS In 1870, Bracken is no longer shown in the Lincoln, TN, Census. The grave marker in the Cross Cemetery shows Bracken to have died on 25 Sep 1866. However, Bracken's wife Emaline ROPER and family are shown in the 1870 Census, including two additional daughters: Emaline ROPER, age 46, Female, White, K. House, Pers. Estate $400, R.E. $500, born Tenn. [sic] Eliza ROPER, age 20, Female, White, At Home, born Tenn. Wm. ROPER, age 16, Male, White, F. Labor, born Tenn. Sarah ROPER,a ge 14, Female, White, At Home, born Tenn. Winee ROPER, age 10, Female, White, At Home, born Tenn. Margaret ROPER, age 8, Female, White, At Home, born Tenn. Allace [Alice] ROPER, age 4, Female, White, At Home, born Tenn. (Image 24 of 30 at the Ancestry.com presentation of the Census data for District 17, Lincoln, TN) * * * 1880 CENSUS Curiously, despite the indication that Bracken ROPER was dead by 1866, two additional ROPER children appear within Emaline's household in 1880. Moreover, we learn that Emaline's first name is actually Theressa: Theresa E. ROPER, White, Female, age 53, Widowed, Keeping house, born AL, Father born AL, Mother born TN Margaret ROPER, White, Female, age 18, Daughter, Single, Ast Keeping house, born Tenn., Father born Tenn, Mother born Tenn. Alice ROPER, White, Female, age 16, Daughter, Single, Ast Keeping house, born Tenn., Father born Tenn, Mother born Tenn. John ROPER, White, Male, age 14, Son, Single, Works on Farm, born Tenn., Father born Tenn, Mother born Tenn. Willia C. ROPER, White, Female, age 8, Daughter, Single, born Tenn., Father born Tenn, Mother born Tenn. C. WILLIAMS, White, Female, age 59, Widowed, born Tenn., Father born Tenn, Mother born Tenn. (Image 18 of 28 at the Ancestry.com presentation of the Census data for District 17, Lincoln, TN) It is UNCLEAR how it might be that the children's mother is shown to have been born in Tenn. when Theresa E. ROPER is shown to have been born in ALABAMA. Similarly, since Bracken showed his birthplace to be North Carolina in both the 1850 and 1860 Census enumerations, this seems most likely to be his place of birth. The indication that both parents were born in Tennessee seems to be simply a MISTAKE. * * * * * BRACKEN ROPER's YEAR OF BIRTH We thus have these implict estimates of Bracken ROPER's year of birth from the Census: b abt 1805-10 (age 10 to 15) [1820] b abt 1801-10 (age 21 to 29) [1830] b abt 1801-10 (age 30 to 39) [1840] b abt 1806 (age 44) [1850] b abt 1810 (age 50) [1860] In my view, despite the grave marker showing a year of birth of 1800, the Census data would seem to support a year of birth of 1805 to 1810, with 1806 the most likely year. Further, it seems to me that it is most likely that Bracken ROPER is OLDER than Joshua ROPER, who is shown to be age 42 (b abt 1808 - TN) in the 1850 Census, age 52 (b abt 1808 - TN) in the 1860 Census, and 62 (b abt 1808 - TN) in 1870. It seems to me that Bracken is LIKELY to be older whether or not Joshua is his brother or cousin, since it would be more likely that Joshua would have been shown as the head of household in 1840 if Joshua was older, though perhaps this would NOT be the case if Bracken as the LAND OWNER. For this reason, I believe that Bracken's age range can be further narrowed to abt 1805-7, again with abt 1806 as the MOST LIKELY year. Some secondary sources show Bracken's year of birth as 1805. If someone is aware of any actual primary record showing this year, I would be interested in learning of it. * * * BRACKEN ROPER's PLACE OF BIRTH Both the 1850 and 1860 Census record show Bracken ROPER's place of birth as NORTH CAROLINA and therefore it seems to me that this should be considered to be trustworthy. * * * There are several additional primary records showing specific information about Bracken ROPER's children. Alabama Death records show the death of Martha C. RILEY at age 76 on 20 Sep 1924 in Madison County, AL. See: "Alabama, Deaths, 1908-1974," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/JDNB-7D9 : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Martha C. Riley, 20 Sep 1924; citing reference cn 20006, Department of Health, Montgomery; FHL microfilm 1908263. Secondary source report Martha's precise date of birth as June 17, 1848. This is consistent with the 1900 Census record showing Martha's month and year of birth as June 1848 while residing with husband Farell RILEY (b Mar 1846 - TN) and her family in Lincoln, TN. * Amongst Tennessee Death records, Elizabeth VICKERS is shown to have been born on 12 Oct 1850 and to have died on 29 Aug 1925 in Blanche, Lincoln County, Tennessee. This death record shows Elizabeth VICKERS' parents as Bracken ROPER and Emeline WILLIAMS. This death record also shows both of Elizabeth's parents to have been born in Alabama. See: "Tennessee, Death Records, 1914-1955," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/NSX5-GNP : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Eliza Vickers, 28 Aug 1925; citing Cemetery, Blanche, Lincoln, Tennessee, v 38 cn 183, State Library and Archives, Nashville; FHL microfilm 1299787. * The Texas Death record of Sallie Adaline COX shows Sallie's date of birth to be 22 Jan 1857 and her date of death to be 06 Sep 1947. Sallie is shown to be the daughter of Bracken ROPER and Emeline WILLIAMS and born in Lincoln, Tennessee. Sallie is shown to have died in Kaufman County, Texas. See: "Texas, Deaths, 1890-1976," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/K39K-3FQ : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Sallie Adaline Cox, 06 Sep 1947; citing certificate number 38994, State Registrar Office, Austin; FHL microfilm 2218652. * Similarly, the Tennessee Death record for Margaret Bethene WALKER gives Margaret's date of birth as 02 Mar 1861 and her date of death as 10 May 1938. Margaret WALKER's parents are shown as Bracken ROPER and Emiline WILLIAMS. This record gives Bracken's place of birth as Tennessee and that of Emeline WILLIAMS as Alabama. Margaret's spouse is shown as Joseph Allen WALKER. Margaret WALKER is shown to have been interred in Gatlin, TN. See: "Tennessee, Death Records, 1914-1955," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/NS8Y-Y52 : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Margaret Bethene Walker, 10 May 1938; citing Cemetery, Taft, Lincoln, Tennessee, cn 12819, State Library and Archives, Nashville; FHL microfilm 1876864. * * * * * BRACKEN ROPER's CHILDREN SUMMARIZED Mary ROPER (b abt 1845 - Lincoln, TN) James ROPER (b abt 1847 - Lincoln, TN) Martha C. ROPER (17 Jun 1848 - Lincoln, TN, 20 Sep 1924 - Madison County, AL) m RILEY Elizabeth ROPER (b 12 Oct 1850 - Lincoln, TN, d 29 Aug 1925 - Blanche, Lincoln County, TN) m VICKERS Emaline ROPER (b abt 1852 - Lincoln, TN) William ROPER (b abt 1854 - Lincoln, TN) Sarah "Sallie" Adaline ROPER (b 22 Jan 1857 - Lincoln, TN, d 06 Sep 1947 - Kaufman, TX) m COX Winney ROPER (b abt 1859 - Lincoln, TN) Margaret Bethene ROPER (b 02 Mar 1861 - Lincoln, TN, 10 May 1938 - TN) m J. A. WALKER on 14 Sep 1882 Alice ROPER (b abt 1864-6 - Lincoln, TN) John ROPER (b abt 1866 - TN)* Willia C. ROPER (b abt 1872 - TN)* * These children did NOT appear within the 1870 Census and the latter seems to have been born well after Bracken's death. Perhaps these are orphaned nephews, nieces or grandchildren whom have been adopted. * * * I want to emphasize that I am NOT endeavoring to do a complete genealogy of this family, but rather am simply collecting the readily available primary evidence in support of further analysis as to the correct identity and ascription of Joseph and Martha ROPER. Others are welcome and encouraged to elaborate on the information shown. I would further note that EXCEPT for the omission of discussion about the additional children in the 1880 Census, much of what has been reported by secondary sources regarding Bracken and his family seems to be reasonably accurate. * * * * * Finally, I want to note that Bracken seems to name his eldest son "James" rather than "Joseph". Neither does Bracken seem to name ANY child after Joseph ROPER. But the second daughter is named "Martha". 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, Butler, Bracken, Whitehead Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1938/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank BATCHELOR and I have recently been analyzing and discussing the family of Joseph and Martha ROPER, of Lincoln, Tennessee, within my prevoius thread about John ROPER, of Pendleton, SC: "John ROPER (b abt 1756-66), of Pendleton, SC" (8 Jun 2014 1:51AM GMT) http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1923/mb.ashx In this additional post within the aforementioned thread, I introduce the possibility that the Joseph ROPER enumerated in the 1800 Census in Pendleton, SC, might be another son of this John ROPER: "Children of John ROPER (b abt 1756-66), of Pendleton, SC" (9 Jun 2014 11:24AM GMT) http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1923.1/mb.ashx Frank then carried forward that argument showing that Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, TN, might be the SAME Joseph ROPER shown in Pendleton, SC, in 1800: "Re: Children of John ROPER (b abt 1756-66), of Pendleton, SC" (27 Jun 2014 4:18PM GMT) http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1923.1.1/mb.ashx * * Several other posts within that thread also bear on the question of whether Joseph ROPER, of Pendleton, SC, and Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, TN, are one and the same. I have gone back and forth as to the correct disposition of this question and within this post am again more inclined to believe that these were DIFFERENT Joseph ROPERs for reasons more fully explained herein. I thought that this couple, to whom are ascribed a rather large branch of the ROPER family deserved a dedicated thread which might be somewhat more conspicuous as to its subject. I would certainly encourage those with an interest in this ROPER family to carefully read each of the posts within the aforementioned thread, particularly as to the relationships of the other likely children of John ROPER, of Pendleton. * * * 1820 CENSUS With a fresh look at Joseph and Martha ROPER, it seemed to me that we ought to BEGIN with the data about which we have the greatest confidence and then build from that foundation, rather than starting with the speculative. Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, TN, first appears within the 1820 Census enumeration, the first Census of Tennessee which survives: Joseph ROPER: 3 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 3 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Lincoln, TN 1820] (Image 18 of 46 for Lincoln, TN, at the Ancestry.com presentation of the 1820 Census data) This Joseph ROPER is shown to be age 45 or more (b bef 1776) and the eldest female is also shown to be age 45 or more. There are a total of six children residing in Joseph ROPER's household, five boys and one girl. Three of the males and the oen female are shown to be under ten years of age (b abt 1811-20). Two of the boys are shown to be age 10 to 15 (b abt 1805-10). This is consistent with this couple marrying sometime about 1805, IF the children are actually those of Joseph and Martha. * * Separately, I want to expressly call attention to the presence of two members of the BUTLER family on the bottom page (same Census image): Joel BUTLER and Benjamin BUTLER, each apparently age 26-44. I mention these because Charles ROPER, Jr., of Dinwiddie, VA, was married to an Elizabeth BUTLER and Charles ROPER also ahd a younger brother named "Joel". I have no specific reason to believe that Joel BUTLER is related to Elizabeth Butler ROPER, but I found the appearance of this name on the adjacent page to be interesting. On the previous page is the name Smith ABNERNETHY (ABERNATHY) as two WALKERs. There are also two STEVENSONs on this page. * * * 1830 CENSUS In 1830, Joseph ROPER is GONE from the Lincon, TN, Census. Instead, there appears a Martha ROPER: Martha ROPER: 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- NO SLAVES [Lincoln, TN, 1830] (Image 161 of 206 for Lincoln, TN, at the Ancestry.com presentation of the 1830 Census data) Martha ROPER is shown to be age 60 to 69 in 1830 (b abt 1761-70). There are by then only FOUR younger males and one younger female within this ROPER household. Two of the males are under age twenty, one age 10 to 14 (b abt 1816-20) and the other age 15 to 19 (b abt 1811-15). There are also two males age 20 to 29 (b abt 1801-20). The sole young female in this household is shown to be age 10 to 14 (b abt 1816-20). The ages, genders, and counts of these children are completely CONSISTENT with the Census record of Joseph ROPER in 1820 and Martha ROPER's age is consistent, as well. We can draw a reasonably strong inference that Martha ROPER is probably Joseph ROPER's widow and that the household composition remained much the same, with either the death or departure from this ROPER household of one young male born abt 1811-20. * * * 1840 CENSUS In 1840, Martha ROPER again appears in the U.S. Census residing in Lincoln, TN, however most of the younger generation seems to have departed: Martha ROPER: 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- NO SLAVES [Lincoln, TN, 1840] (Image 173 of 204 for Lincoln, TN, at the Ancestry.com presentation of the 1840 Census data) Martha ROPER is shown to be age 60 to 69 in 1840 (b abt 1771-80). * Appearing on the immediately following Census page is the household of Bracken ROPER: Bracken ROPER: 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- NO SLAVES [Lincoln, TN, 1840] (Image 175 o 204 for Lincoln, TN, at the Ancestry.com presentation of the 1840 Census data) This record reflects the presence of two males age 30 to 29 (b abt 1801-10) and one male age 20 to 29 (b abt 1811-20), as well as a female age 20 to 29 (b abt 1811-20) residing within Bracken ROPER's household. THERE ARE NO CHILDREN IN THIS HOUSEHOLD IN 1840. This record is exactly consistent with Martha ROPER's 1830 Census record and it appears that three of the males and the female have departed Martha ROPER's household and set up a separate household with Bracken ROPER as the nominal head. * * * By 1850, Martha ROPER can no longer be found in Lincoln, nor anywhere else in the United States as far as I can tell. However, the presence of two ROPER households in Lincoln at least suggest the identities of some of the younger members of Martha ROPER's 1830 household. Bracken ROPER, age 44 (b abt 1806 - NC), again appears within Lincoln, TN. Newly appearing by name for the very first time we also find Joshua ROPER, age 42 (b abt 1808 - TN). Less readily apparent is the location of the other young men found in Joseph ROPER's household in 1820, in Martha's household in 1830 and in Martha and Bracken's households in 1840. Bracken and Joshua are consistent in age with the two eldest males in Joseph ROPER's hosuehold in 1820, the two eldest males in Martha's household in 1830 and the two eldest males in Bracken's household in 1840. But the males born from 1810 to 1819 seem to have died or migrated elsewhere. * * * Martha ROPER, Brackin ROPER and Joseph ROPER are shown consecutively on an 1836 Tax List for Lincoln County, Tennessee. The record seems to show that Martha paid tax on two parcels, one of which was 210 acres and the other 75 acres. See: Ancestry.com. Tennessee, Early Tax List Records, 1783-1895 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2013. This collection was indexed by Ancestry World Archives Project contributors. Original data: Early Tax Lists of Tennessee. Microfilm, 12 rolls. The Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville, Tennessee. * * * BRACKIN ROPER's YEAR OF BIRTH It should be further noted that Bracken ROPER's precise year of birth is subject to some disagreement as to the primary evidence. While Bracken is shown to be age 44 in the 1850 Census enumeration (b abt 1806 - NC), in 1860 he is shown to be only age 50 (b abt 1810 - NC). Then, Bracken ROPER's grave marker states that he was born on 31 Jan 1800 and that he died on 25 Sep 1866. Bracken is interred at the Cross Cemetery in Lincoln, TN. See: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=24087200 I am inclined to believe that the earlier Census reports were more reliable and that Bracken was MORE LIKELY to know his own age than his children were. Moreover, if Bracken was NOT older than the other children who appeared in his 1840 Census record, I am inclined to suspect that one of the other young men would have been named as head of household. Thus, I believe that Bracken was likely to be one of the two young men age 30 to 39 (b abt 1801-10). Thus, three Census records would seem to be in general agreement: b abt 1801-10 (age 30 to 39) [1840] b abt 1806 (age 44) [1850] b abt 1810 (age 50) [1860] * * * The subsequent reappearance of Joseph ROPER, age 47 (b abt 1813 - TN), in Lincoln, TN, in 1860 seems to possibly suggest the identity of one more of the younger men. Secondary sources show this Joseph ROPER to have been married first to Nancy MERRELL and secondly to Politha GATLIN. The 1860 Census record shown this household: Joseph ROPER, age 47, Male, Farmer, born Tenn. Politha ROPER, age 28, Female, born Alabama James ROPER, age 14, Male, born Tenn. Olla ROPER, age 12, Female, born Tenn. Mary ROPER, age 11, Female, born Tenn. Emily ROPER, age 9, Female, born Tenn. Eliza. ROPER, age 7, Female, born Tenn. Mary ROPER, age 6, Female, born Tenn. Edney ROPER, age 3, Female, born Tenn. Sarah ROPER, age 11/12, Female, born Tenn. [Census return dated 06 Jun 1860] * I have NOT FOUND the 1850 Census record for this Joseph ROPER. * * The assertion that Joseph ROPER married a Politha GATLIN is supported by the existence of a marriage record showing a marriage of Joseph ROPER to P. GATLIN in Limestone, AL, on 20 Oct 1853. See: "Alabama, Marriages, 1816-1957," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/V5Z7-T2H : accessed 15 Aug 2014), Joseph Roper and P. Gatlin, 20 Oct 1853; citing reference ; FHL microfilm 1035011. * * * In my view, the presence of Brackin ROPER and Joshua ROPER adjacent on the 1850 Census pages coupled with the adjacency of Bracken ROPER's Census record to that of Martha ROPER, when coupled with the close conformity of the ages, supports a very strong inference that Bracken and Joshua ROPER emerged from Martha ROPER's household. The earlier presence of Joseph ROPER (the younger) in the 1836 Lincoln tax lists, coupled with the later presence of Joseph ROPER in Lincoln, TN, and his close conformance in age with the male shown to be under age 10 in 1820 (b abt 1811-20), age 15 to 19 in 1830 (b abt 1811-15) and age 20 to 29 in 1840 (b abt 1811-20) supports a reasonably strong inference that Joseph ROPER was also a resident of Joseph ROPER and Martha ROPER's household in 1820 and 1830. * * * * * JOSEPH ROPER's YEAR OF BIRTH We have only a single Census record that seems to conclusively belong to the elder Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, TN, that of 1820 when Joseph ROPER is shown to be age 45 or more (b bef 1776). Frank BATCHELOR has discussed the possiblity that this Joseph ROPER was prevously in Pendleton, SC, and a generally reasonable case might seem to be made for this connection. See: "Re: Children of John ROPER (b abt 1756-66), of Pendleton, SC" (27 Jun 2014 4:18PM GMT) http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1923.1.1/mb.ashx Rather than starting from the conclusion that this is the SAME Jospeh ROPER, it seems to me to be a more sound approach to carefully analyze the extant data from Lincoln to assess the expected age range and then to make the comparison with the Pendleton data after first drawing off of the stronger inferences which can be garnered from the Licoln data. * * * MARTHA ROPER's YEAR OF BIRTH While we have only a single data point for Joseph ROPER from 1820, we actually have three data points to use to directly assess Martha ROPER's likely age. First, Martha in 1820 is shown to be age 45 or more in 1820 (b bef 1776). Next, in 1830, Martha is shown to be age 60 to 69 (b abt 1761-70). Finally, in 1840, Martha is again shown to be age 60 to 69 (b abt 1771-80), directly contradicting the 1830 enumeration, though this could perhaps be reconciled with a conclusion that Martha was born near the boundary of these two ranges (e.g. abt 1770-1). Arranging the data, we thus have: b bef 1776 (age 45 or more) [1820] b abt 1761-70 (age 60 to 69) [1830] b abt 1771-80 (age 60 to 69) [1840] If we we to make the inference that ALL three of these indications of age we reasonably CORRECT within a small margin of error, this would support a conclusion that Martha was born abt 1770-1, near the adjacentcy of the 1830 and 1840 reported age ranges. If we were to completely discount the 1820 result ONLY, we might reach a similar conclusion. If we thought the 1830 report was in serious error, we might rely SOLELY on the 1820 and 1840 reports and deduce that Martha was born about 1771-5. And if we thought the 1840 report was in serious error and discarded this report, we would conlude that Martha was born abt 1761-70, as shown in the 1830 enumeration (this being consistent and narrower than the b bef 1776 indication from 1820. Thus, combining the data in several different ways, we might be inclined to conclude either that Martha ROPER was: b abt 1770-1 b abt 1771-5 b abt 1761-70 * * However, we must also recognize that the given AGES of the children also give us a little more information about Martha ROPER's age, though admittedly we cannot be certain that ALL of these are Martha's children. Of the readily identifiable children, Bracken is the eldest and he seems to have been born abt 1806 in NORTH CAROLINA (though see my discussion above). If Martha was born about 1770-1, then she would have been 35 to 36 when Bracken was born. This is really QUITE ANCIENT for those days. If Martha was born as early as 1761, then she would have been about age 45 at the birth of the first KNOWN child. This seems UNLIKELY TO ME. With reference to the younger children, the age range is even more stark. For example, Joseph ROPER seems to have been born about 1813. Again, if Martha was born as early as 1761, then she would have been about age 52 at Joseph's birth IF he is Martha's son. Realize that there was at least one more child shown to be age 10 to 14 in 1830 (b abt 1816-20). If Martha was this child's mother, then she would have been abt age 55 when this younger child was born. This is also the age range of the female child in the household suggesting that Martha might have had children at age 55 and 56, etc. It seems to me that the upper end of the age range implied by the 1830 Census return and the earlier years in the range of 1761 to 1770 are simply UNLIKELY and IMPLAUSIBLE given the ages of the younger children. For this reason, I would submit that IF Martha is the mother of the younger children in the Lincoln ROPER households in 1820 and 1830, it is MORE LIKELY that the 1830 Census report is erroneous and that Martha is more likely to be an age consistent with the 1820 and 1840 data. * * * There is another dissonance to assuming that Joseph and Martha are OLDER than most couples with children of these ages. Until the post-Civil War era, during which there were many "old maids" due to the dearth of marriageable men in consequence of the War casualties, the much lower life expectancies of women in child birth reasonably assured that most young women would marry and that they would marry at a young age. It is therefore UNLIKELY that Martha would have married as late as age 25 EXCEPT as to a second marriage or subsequent marriage. If Joseph ROPER was married as early as 1790, then he would most likely have been shown as a head of household in the 1790 Census if residing in North Carolina or South Carolina. Of course, if Joseph ROPER was residing in Virginia, where the Census returns were LOST, then he would be essentially invisible. Similarly, if Joseph ROPER was ALREADY in Tennessee, then he would be amongst those whose presence cannot be identified because the Census returns were LOST. * * * Overall, I believe that it is most reasonable to REJECT the age range given for Martha completely in 1830 and to place the greatest reliance on the 1820 and 1840 data, thus yeilding an age range of b abt 1771-5. * * * * * Now there is also some intuition to be garnered from analysis of Martha ROPER's age in respect to our confidence in the single 1820 Census enumeration as to Joseph ROPER's age. Joseph ROPER is shown to be age 45 or more in 1820 (b bef 1776). It is MORE LIKELY than not that Joseph was OLDER than Martha. This is far from certain, but more often than not women married before men and women also tended to marry older men. Thus, the Census data for Martha ROPER for 1820, 1830 and 1840 seems to suggest that we ought to place somewhat greater confidence in the validity of the Census data shown for Joseph ROPER. That is the indication that Joseph ROPER was born before 1776 seems likely to be CORRECT. * This, in turn, seems to me to somewhat undermine the possibility that Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, TN, might have been Charles ROPER and Ann BUTLER's son Joseph ROPER. Though we do NOT know precisely when this Joseph ROPER was born, it seems likely that he was born AFTER Nancy ROPER (b 06 Apr 1777) and probably before Mary (Dolly) ROPER, who seems to have been born about 1789 or 1790. IF this is Charles and Elizabeth Butler ROPER's son Joseph, then he might have married a somewhat older woman after the death of his first wife (Miss WHITEHEAD). For some reasons to be the subject of another future post, I still think that this may be the case. 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/1932.11.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Bill, Before giving you my thoughts on Charles Roper of Pendleton District, SC, I want to say how much I have been enjoying your most recent posts; very thorough and well-reasoned arguments. I think it is highly likely that the Charles Roper who appears in the 1800 Pendleton District, SC census is a son of Meredith Roper, and that James Roper of Burke County, NC, and David Roper, first of Burke County, NC and then of Pickens, SC, were his brothers. Benjamin Roper of Pendleton District, SC is also probably his brothers. I also think that John Roper of Pendleton District, SC could be a son of Meredith and a brother of Charles Roper. I also think it is highly unlikely that the Charles Roper of Pendleton District, SC is the same person as Charles Roper, Jr. of Dinwiddie County, VA. For the purposes of this article, I will limit my discussion to the Pendleton District, SC records on Charles Roper, in an effort to distinguish this Charles Roper from the Charles Roper, Jr. in Dinwiddie, VA. I think the Pendleton District records make a compelling case for my argument. There is also circumstantial evidence that Charles Roper of Pendleton, SC came from Rutherford County, NC, and that his brother David came at a later date. However, that argument is based primarily on circumstantial evidence, which is never as strong as direct evidence. So presently I will stick with Pendleton records in support of my argument. Charles Roper first appears in 1800 Pendleton District, SC census on page 16 of the records of Ancestry.com: Charles Roper 2-1-0-0-1*****4-2-0-1-0*****0-0 Charles Roper is shown as age 45 . His presumed wife is 26-44. There are two males <10 and one male 10-15. There are four females <10 and two females 10-15. There are no slaves. Charles Roper would have been born in 1755 or earlier. Unfortunately, there is no extant population 1800 census record for the Charles Roper, Jr. of Dinwiddie County, VA. We do know from the Moore Family Bible that Charles Roper, Jr. of Dinwiddie was born on April 19, 1758. Thus, he would only be 42 years of age in 1800, which is inconsistent with the age of 45 for the Charles Roper in the 1800 Pendleton District, SC census. Also, the Charles Roper seen in the 1800 Pendleton District, SC census has three male children in the household, while Charles Roper, Jr. of Dinwiddie had only two sons, Goodwyn and Joseph. On page 17 of the Pendleton District, SC census, we find Benjamin Roper: Benj Roper 1-0-0-1-0*****0-0-1-0-0*****0-0 Benjamin is age 26-45. There is one male <10 and a female 16-25. On page 18 of the 1800 Pendleton District, SC census, we find the Merriday Roper and Joshua Roper living four houses apart: Merriday Roper 0-0-0-0-1*****0-0-1-0-1*****0-0 Joshua Roper 1-0-1-0-0*****1-0-1-0-0*****0-0 Merriday and his wife are 45 . There is one other female age 16-25 living in the household. Joshua Roper is shown as age 16-25, with a wife age 16-25, and one male <10 and one female <10. Going the opposite direction in the census records, on page 13, we find Joseph Roper, age 16-25, and the Bracken family, who I have discussed in the post dated June 27, 2014 under the title of "Children of John Roper (b abt 1756-66), of Pendleton, SC". On page 12 of the same census, we find John Roper: John Roper 2-2-0-1-0*****0-0-1-0-0*****0-0 John Roper is shown as age 26-44. There is one female age 16-25 and two males <10 and two males 10-15. There are four more Ropers who appear in the 1800 Pendleton District census, i.e. Gilham Roper, age 16-25; John Roper, age 16-25; Thomas Roper, 45 ; and William Roper, 16-25, which I will not discuss in detail. Charles Roper next appears in the 1810 Pendleton District, SC, census, a few properties away from Abs Roper, on page 20: Chas Roper 1-1-0-0-1*****2-2-1-0-1*****0-0 Abs Roper 2-0-0-1-0*****0-0-1-0-0*****0-0 Charles again is shown as age 45 , with a wife 45 . There are a number of younger family members. Charles Roper, Jr. of Dinwiddie appears in the 1810 Dinwiddie County, VA census: Charles Roper 1-1-0-0-1*****0-0-0-0-1 Charles Roper, Jr. is shown as age 45 , with a presumed wife age 45 . They have one male<1-, and one male 10-15 residing in the home. The age of Charles is consistent with his being born in 1758. If Charles Roper of Pendleton, SC and Charles Roper, Jr. of Dinwiddie, VA were the same people, they should not be appearing in two different census records at the same time. Charles Roper also appears in the 1820 Pendleton District, SC census on page 41, a few houses from Aaron Roper: Charles Roper 0-0-0-2-0-1*****0-0-0-1-1-1 Aaron Roper 2-2-0-0-1-0*****3-0-0-1-0-3 Charles and his wife are again shown as age 45 . There are 2 males age 16-25 and one female age 26-44. (The last digit is a one, which Ancestry.com identifies as a "foreigner not naturalized". Bill, perhaps you know what this means?) Aaron, who is usually identified by secondary sources as one of the sons of Charles, is shown as age 16-44, with a wife age 26-45, and seven children. In the 1850 Pickens County, SC census, he will be shown as age 66, born in North Carolina. Charles Roper, Jr. of Dinwiddie appears in the 1820 Dinwiddie County, VA census: Charles Roper 1-0-1-1-0-1*****1-2-0-1-1 Charles Roper, Jr. is again shown at age 45 , with a presumed wife age 45 . There appears to be a younger family residing with them consisting of a female age 26-44, a female <10, and two females 10-15. Also residing with them are a male 16-25, a male 16-18, and a male <10. If Charles Roper of Pendleton, SC and Charles Roper, Jr. of Dinwiddie, VA were the same person, they should not be appearing in two separate census records. There is one more entry in the 1830 Pickens County, SC district that might show Charles Roper still living in the household of Reuben Roper, who is also considered by secondary sources as a son of Charles Roper: Reuben Roper 1-0-0-0-1-0-0-0-0-1-0-0-0*****0-0-0-1-0-0-0-0-1-0-0-0 Reuben Roper is shown as age 20-29, with a wife 15-19. There is one male <5. There is a male age 70-79 and a female age 70-79. The older male and female could be Charles Roper and his wife who would have been born 1750-1760, consistent with Charles estimated birth in the 1800 Pendleton census of 1755 or before. His wife's dates are also consistent. Of course, it is possible that the two older people Reuben's census record were the parents of Rueben's wife. I have not done enough research to definitely know whose parents they were. 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/1932.13/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: At Dave ROPER's website there is a brief mention of ABSTRACTS of Dinwiddie Probate records. Here is what the ABSTRACT SAYS: "Will Book: Rev. Devereux Jarratt: 1790 Wit: Joel Roper & Dennis Marshall Charles Roper estate 1791-1792 Wit: Joel Roper; Charles Roper 1799-1801 Wit: Goodwyn Roper" See: http://www.roperld.com/rva17.htm There are two significant things to realize about these references. First, the Abstracts are BADLY GARBLED. Second, a careful analysis of these ABSTRACTS shows that the really SIGNIFICANT Dinwiddie information has been IGNORED and SUPPRESSED to conceal the mischief associated with fictional ancestors and fraudulent ascriptions! * The FIRST abstracted record mentioned makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER, UNLESS the "1790" date reflects the DATE OF REV. JARRATT's WILL rather that the DATE of Probate, which is precisely what it MUST MEAN. Rev. JARRATT is KNOWN to have died on 29 Jan 1801. However, given that it is KNOWN that BOTH Joel ROPER and Dennis MARSHALL were residing with Rev. JARRATT in 1790 (see the Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax records), it seems quite plausible that Rev. JARRATT called upon each of these KNOWN adult members of his household as witnesses to the Will. But if this is the case, the Abstract has OMITTED the other critical information as to WHEN the Will was proved and at which Book and Page the Will can be found. Rev. JARRATT's Will might actually have some significant information in it as he MIGHT BE A ROPER COUSIN. Rev. JARRATT was BORN in New Kent County and is KNOWN TO BE A GRANDSON OF JOSEPH BRADLEY. The BRADLEY FAMILY were NEIGHBORS of the ROPER in Charles City County. It seems UNLIKELY that Rev. JARRATT would have made bequests to first or second cousins. But we simply DO NOT KNOW of his bequests, because NO ONE wants to examine the PRIMARY RECORDS. Instead, everyone just keeps INVENTING FICTIONAL ANCESTORS and making FRAUDULENT ascriptions. * * The Abstracts given in the following line are even more APPALLING. The entry MAKES NO SENSE as a SINGLE RECORD: "Charles Roper estate 1791-1792 Wit: Joel Roper; Charles Roper 1799-1801 Wit: Goodwyn Roper" This can ONLY reasonably mean that there is an EXTANT Probate record for Charles ROPER's Estate. More importantly, WHAT CAN POSSIBLY BE MEANT BY "Witness", UNLESS there is a WILL for Charles ROPER. I suppose that Joel ROPER could be a witness to Charles ROPER's DEATH. But typically probate administrations of that era almost NEVER INVOLVE A NAMED WITNESS EXCEPT TO PROVE A WILL. If there IS an extant Will, WHY NOT obtain a copy, TRANCRIBE IT and POST IT for the benefit of other researchers? * Even if the ONLY thing that is available is an Inventory, Inventory Sales Record and Settlement and distribution, these would be ENORMOUSLY IMORTANT records for the ROPER family. But there are NO REFERENCES to a Book or Page and NO ONE SEEMS TO HAVE EVER BOTHERED TO HAVE LOOKED FOR OR OBTAINED THESE RECORDS. * * Similarly, WHAT CAN IT MEAN to have an abstract which says: "Charles Roper 1799-1801 Wit: Goodwyn Roper" Again, WITNESS implies the existence of a WILL. The DATES GIVEN, 1799-1801 are completely INCOMPATIBLE with the idea that Charles ROPER, Jr. continued to live for more than two more decades. So once again, the dates (though TWO ARE GIVEN) would seem to suggest a date of the WILL rather than the date of probate. So there are a couple of possibilities. One is that this is a grandson of Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER. The other possibility is that there is a Will DATED 1799 or 1801 which was probated two decades later. * * * * * The KEY IDEA that I have been trying to get across for a couple of years is that NONE OF THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE IN DINWIDDIE HAS EVER BEEN PROPERLY OBTAINED AND EXAMINED. Instead, the Fictionalists simply INVENTED various fictional ancestors and devised various fraudulent ascriptions, thereafter publishing this FALSE FAMILY HISTORY and then declared the problem SOLVED. To DISCOURAGE further inquiry, the critical references have been obfuscated and/or withheld. It is particularly APPALLING the extent to the dishonesty of these Fictionalists has not only obscured and misled serious research, but has wasted an enormous amount of time by sending people down false paths. This is WHY it is ESSENTIAL that all serious researchers REJECT and REPUDIATE the unsourced FICTIONAL accounts which continue to wash around the Internet. It seems to me that one of the critical things that needs to inform our understanding of Charles ROPER and Elizabeth BUTLER is WHAT CHARLES ROPER's WILL or other probate information actually says. That is really how serious genealogy is done. I think you did a very nice job of lacing together the readily available data. But there has been NO MEANINGFUL PROGRESS advancing the family history of Charles ROPER's family for more than two decades because NO ONE HAS BOTHERED TO LOOK. This is largely a consequence of the continous publication and re-publciation of inherently DISHONEST genealogical information. 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/1937.3/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I am also crosslinking this thread on Charles's son Jesse and Obedience ROPER: "Jesse ROPER (b 31 May 1751,d bef 22 Jan 1810), son of Charles ROPER and Ann GOODWYN" (10 May 2014 8:12AM GMT) http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1903/mb.ashx 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, Butler Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1937.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I am crosslinking Frank's EXCELLENT thread on Charles and Elizabeth Butler ROPER: "Charles Roper b Apr 19, 1758, VA; d.1823 Dinwiddie VA; m Elizabeth Butler; and son Joseph Roper" (12 Jul 2014 12:40PM GMT) http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1932/mb.ashx 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/1859.6.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: The 1783 Brunswick, Virginia, Personal Property Tax Lists show both William ROPER and David ROPER residing in Brunswick, VA, that year: William ROPER: 1 - 1 - 2 - 10 David ROPER:. 2 - 5 - 5 - 16 David ROPER is shown to have TWO tithable males in his household that year. Perhaps more importantly, David ROPER is shown to own slaves named Tom, Sarah, Charles and Abram. In my view, the coinciding appearance of a slave named "Tom" in the 1783 Tax List and the appearance of a slave named "Tom" within the Inventory of the estate of David ROPER, of Edgefield, SC, rather conclusively establishes that the David ROPER who died in Edgefield was the SAME David ROPER previously resident in Brunswick, VA. Of course, by obtaining, transcribing and posting the ANNUAL Personal Property Tax Lists for Brunswick for EACH YEAR from 1782 through 1801, we should also be able to demonstrate the DEPARTURE of David ROPER from Virginia prior tohis appearance in Edgefield, South Carolina. 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/1937.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: See also Frank BATCHELOR's earlier thread in which some of this evidence was previous discussed: "Charles Roper and Ann Goodwyn- Born in England?" (26 Jun 2013 3:31PM GMT) http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1807/mb.ashx 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/mb.ashx Message Board Post: The family of Charles ROPER and Ann GOODWYN has been the subject of frequent posts within this ROPER Message Board. However, there really hasn't been a central thread at which to collect the various posted information about this important ROPER family. This thread is intended as a place to collect some of the readily available primary information about this early ROPER family. Much of what we know with a reasonably high degree of certainty about the family of Charles ROPER and Ann GOODWYN appears within the MOORE Family Bible kept by Charles ROPER's grandchildren Benjamin MOORE (b 31 Aug 1771) and his wife Nancy ROPER (b 06 Apr 1777). These children of Charles and Ann ROPER are identified within the MOORE Family Bible: David ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742 - Bristol Parish, VA) Larell ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742 - Bristol Parish, VA) Jane ROPER (b 06 Mar 1744) Millie ROPER (b 27 Aug 1747) Annie ROPER (b 01 Aug 1749) Jesse ROPER (b 31 May 1751) William ROPER (b 26 Jun 1753) Allen ROPER (b 03 Apr 1756) Charles ROPER (b 19 Apr 1758) Josiah ROPER (b 26 Apr 1760) Ann ROPER (b 13 Apr 1763) Joel ROPER (b 26 Jun 1766) The MOORE Family Bible pages can be found within the collection of the Virginia State Library and Archives shown as "Moore family Bible record, 1742-1916." (LVA Call No. 25894): http://lva1.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/F * * * The information given in the MOORE Family Bible is corroborated by the Bristol Parish Register as to the birth of the twins David and Laura (or Loweral) ROPER [shown as ROUPERS] within the Parish Register [at page 360]: https://archive.org/stream/vestrybookandre01chamgoog#page/n374/mode/1up * * * Charles ROPER is shown to have patented 39 1/2 acres of land on both sides of Stills Road in Dinwiddie County on 10 Sep 1760 [Shown as Charles ROOPER]. http://image.lva.virginia.gov/LONN/LO-1/031-032/031_0457.tif A full description of this parcel is given within the Virginia Land patent readily available at the Library of Virginia website. * * * By 1782, Charles ROPER, Sen. had accumulated 200 acres of land in Dinwiddie, as shown in the Dinwiddie Land Tax Records. See: http://va-dinwiddiecounty.civicplus.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/119 By that same year, Charles ROPER's son Charles ROPER, Jr., had accumulated 330 acres of Dinwiddie land. * * * Also, by 1782 Charles ROPER is shown in Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax Lists residing in Dinwiddie County. Daniel FERGUSSON is shown to also reside within Charles ROPER's hosuehold and is taxable to Charles ROPER. Charles ROPER is shown to have TWO tithable white males (himself and Daniel FERGUSSON), two (1) adult slaves, one (1) slave under age 16, four (4) horses, and seventeen (17) head of cattle. See: https://archive.org/stream/jstor-1914860/1914860#page/n9/mode/1up Charles ROPER, Jr., is also shown in the 1782 Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax Lists. We can reasonably infer from the 1782 Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax List that ALL of Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER's eldest sons had LEFT the household and probably LEFT DINWIDDIE by 1782: David ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742) Jesse ROPER (b 31 May 1751) William ROPER (b 26 Jun 1753) Allen ROPER (b 03 Apr 1756) Josiah ROPER (b 26 Apr 1760) Joel ROPER (b 26 Jun 1766) was then still too young to be shown in the Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax Lists. * * * * * David ROPER and William ROPER age shown within the 1783 Tax Lists for Brunswick County, VA, District 1. Brunswick County is the adjacent County to the immediate South of Dinwiddie. This David ROPER and William ROPER seem likely to be Charles and Ann ROPER's sons: David ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742) William ROPER (b 26 Jun 1753) * * The Brunswick 1783 Personal Property Tax Records show these counts: William ROPER: 1 - 1 - 2 - 10 David ROPER:. 2 - 5 - 5 - 16 David ROPER is shown to own slaves named Tom, Sarah, Charles and Abram. See: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~vabrunsw/taxlist/1783_10.pdf * * * Both Charles ROPER and Charles ROPER Jr. age again shown in the Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax Lists in 1790: http://www.binnsgenealogy.com/VirginiaTaxListCensuses/Dinwiddie/1790PersonalB/14.jpg Joel ROPER is also shown on the 1790 Dinwiddie Person Property Tax List residing within the household of Rev. Devereux JARRATT (b 06 Jan 1732/3 - New Kent, d 29 Jan 1801 - VA), the rector of Bath Parish: http://www.binnsgenealogy.com/VirginiaTaxListCensuses/Dinwiddie/1790PersonalB/09.jpg * * * NO ONE SEEMS TO HAVE OBTAINED, TRANSCRIBED AND POSTED THE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX DATA FOR DINWIDDIE FOR YEARS 1783 TO 1789 AND FROM 1791 TO 1799. * * * Frank BATCHELOR has noted within a recent post on Charles ROPER Jr. that Charles ROPER, Senr., is last shown in the Dinwiddie Land Tax Lists in 1794 and that this same 200 acre parcel is listed to the Charles ROPER Estate in 1795. See: "Charles Roper b Apr 19, 1758, VA; d.1823 Dinwiddie VA; m Elizabeth Butler; and son Joseph Roper" (12 Jul 2014 12:40PM GMT) http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1932/mb.ashx Frank is citing this Land Tax List: http://www.dinwiddieva.us/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/148 Joel ROPER also appears for the FIRST TIME as a Dinwiddie Land Owner on this Tax List, shown as owning 14 1/4 acres purchased from James ANDERSON. * * While Frank is certainly CORRECT that Charles ROPER's Estate is listed in the 1794 Tax List, he has overlooked the fact that Charles ROPER's Estate is actually first shown in the 1791 Land Tax List (at Adobe Page 16): http://va-dinwiddiecounty.civicplus.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/135 However, in the 1792 Tax List the land is again shown as taxable to Charles ROPER (at Adobe Page 15): http://va-dinwiddiecounty.civicplus.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/137 * Similarly, in the 1793 Tax List the land is again shown as taxable to Charles ROPER [no estate] (at Adobe Page 16): http://va-dinwiddiecounty.civicplus.com/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/138 * * * The appearance of a Brunswick, VA, deed in 1793 gives a further indication that Charles ROPER was probably already dead by the date of this conveyance: William Roper to Charles Roper's Exors D.T. Joel Roper of Dinwiddie Co. deed 100 acres 1793 15-441 I have NOT seen the underlying image of this record. But in my view, the combination of this Brunswick deed and the 1791 Dinwiddie Tax List supports a conclusion that the elder Charles ROPER died BEFORE 1794 and probably BEFORE the compilation of the 1791 Dinwiddie Land Tax List. Further confirmation of Charles ROPER's date of death can probably be ascertained from the Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax Lists. It seems to me that we can reasonably infer that Charles ROPER was probably still living at the May 1, 1790, date he is shown on the Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax Lists and the date of the 1791 Land Tax Lists. As far as I can tell, no one has ever bothered to inspect other Dinwiddie records from this period. * * * * * It bears mention that Charles ROPER is shown in several land transactions in Brunswick, VA: Charles Roper of Bath Parish in Dinwiddie Co. from Hugh Williams & wife deed 200 acres south side of Nottaway River 1767 9-67 Charles Roper & wife Ann of Bath Parish in Dinwiddie Co. to Robert Read deed where David Roper, son of Charles Roper, now lives 1771 10-402 Charles Roper of Bath Parish in Dinwiddie Co. from Thomas Haley & wife deed 1778 13-96 The second of these records would seem to show that Charles ROPER's wife Ann (Goodwyn) ROPER was still living in 1771. * * These Brunswich deeds are taken from abstracts shown at Dave ROPER's page: http://www.roperld.com/rva17.htm * * * * * At some juncture, those who are descended from Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER, probably about 40% of the ROPERs in the American South, may actually take an interest in their ancestor Charles ROPER and will take the time to look up the Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax records to get a bit of additional clarity about this important 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 Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1932.12/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: I wanted to call you your attention that a transacription of the 1782 Dinwiddie Personal Personal Property Tax Lists was published in the William and Mary Quarterly edition of October 1, 1917, beginning at page 96 in an article entitled simply "Personal Property Tax List Dinwiddie 1782". A copy of this article is available online at the Archives.org website: https://archive.org/stream/jstor-1914860/1914860#page/n0/mode/1up The introduction to this article gives a good overview on the extant records available for Dinwiddie County. You cited from (I think) Dave's summarization of the 1782 Dinwiddie data: "A 1782 tax list for Dinwiddie County lists: free male, negro >21, negro <21, horses, cattle Charles Roper Jr 1 - - 2 10; Charles Roper Sen 2 2 1 4 17" However, inspection of the William & Mary Quarterly transcription shows the omission of one rather critical detail. In 1782, Charles ROPER, Sen., is shown to have TWO tithables (over age 21) residing within his household and the OTHER tithable is actually identified BY NAME: https://archive.org/stream/jstor-1914860/1914860#page/n8/mode/1up The OMITTED NAME is that of Daniel FERGUSSON, who is rather clearly residing within the Charles ROPER household, though his relationship is unclear. He isn't shown to have been married to any of Charles ROPER's daughters, though perhaps he was. He could be a nephew or cousin. Or he may simply have been the Overseer of Charles ROPER's plantation. It bears mention that Charles ROPER's SON Josiah ROPER (b 26 Apr 1760), about whom little is known, would seem to have been age 22 by this date and therefore Josiah probably should have appeared BY NAME if he was still residing with his father. By contrast, Charles ROPER's youngest son, Joel ROPER (b 26 Jun 1766) would have been only about 16. We would expect Joel to first appear in the Personal Property Tax lists beginning about 1787. We can reasonably infer from the 1782 Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax List that ALL of Charles and Ann Goodwyn ROPER's eldest sons had LEFT the household and probably LEFT DINWIDDIE by 1782: David ROPER (b 29 Jun 1742) Jesse ROPER (b 31 May 1751) William ROPER (b 26 Jun 1753) Allen ROPER (b 03 Apr 1756) Josiah ROPER (b 26 Apr 1760) Charles ROPER, Jr. (b 19 Apr 1758) had left the household but REMAINED in Dinwiddie and is therefore still shown in the Tax Lists. As mentioned above, Joel ROPER (b 26 Jun 1766) was then still too young to be shown in the Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax Lists. 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, Jarratt Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1753.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Rev. Devereux JARRATT's autobiography is now available for download from Google Books: The life of the Reverend Devereux Jarratt: rector of Bath parish, Dinwiddie county, by Rev. Devereux JARRATT (Baltimore: Warner & Hanna, 1806) http://books.google.com/books/about/The_life_of_the_Reverend_Devereux_Jarrat.html?id=fn4EAAAAYAAJ I am almost half through the book, though I have NOT found any ROPER mentions. Even so, the book affords some incredible insight into the life and times of JARRATT who was born in New Kent, was a grandson of Joseph BRADLEY, and lived most of his adult life in Dinwiddie County. It also gives terrific insight into the evolution and breakaway of the Methodists, which had existed as a religious society within the Anglican and later Protestant Episcoal Church before separation into a separate relgious denomination. Of course, JARRATT writes from an Episcopal perspective. But he was an evangelical Episcopalian who had embraced the Methodist religious society and clearly felt betrayed when the Methodists separated into another denomination. 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, Butler Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1932.11/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: I want to share another further thought with you regarding my misgivings relating to the meaning and inferences which might be reasonably drawn from the Dinwiddie Real Property records, as well as some background observations on what may have been taking place with Charles and Elizabeth (Butler) ROPER. First, it seems to me that the data supports the conclusion that of the sons of Charles ROPER and Anne GOODWYN, ONLY Charles ROPER and Joel ROPER had remained in or near Dinwiddie in the decade preceeding the elder Charles ROPER's death. I haven't discussed Joel ROPER in great detail, but I can tell you that within my notes I have references to primary records putting Joel ROPER in Powhatan County for at least some interval prior to his death. I will have to find, transcribe and post those notes. Joel ROPER seems to have been studying under the leading Anglican minister in Virginia of that era. One thing that is UNCLEAR is whether Ann Goodwyn ROPER was still living when her husband died, and this UNKNOWN fact, in my view, colors any further discussion about the disposition of the Dinwiddie property and also what might be reasonably inferred from the records, even the Personal Property Tax records, as further elaborated below. It was not at all uncommon for a man vested with an estate to leave either a life interest to his wife or, at least, to provide that the wife was to be permitted to continue to reside at the primary estate/residence at least until her death. Such provisions protected the widow against the premature sale of the property or disruption to her lifestyle for her remaining lifetime. Depending upon the size and layout of the plantation house, the location, life stage and disposition of the beneficiary of a bequest of the primary plantation, etc., it might or might not be appropriate, desirable or practical for the legatee to also move onto the property. Given the presence of slaves to work the plantation and care for an aging widow, uprooting one's family to immediately relocated back to the family seat might have been unnecessary, though it would usually be necessary for there to be at least some overseer of a plantation of any size if the son did not immediately return. If the land was directly vested upon conclusion of probate in a particular legatee, such as Charles ROPER, Jr., he might very well have appeared on the tax roles after the conclusion of the probate whether or not he occupied the property. Interestingly, he might have also found himself subject to Personal Property Tax liability in respect of continued ownership and operation of the property, whether or not he actually resided there IF HE WAS LIVING OUT OF STATE. While Virginia Personal Property Tax laws seemed to preclude the imposition of Personal Property Taxes in more than one county, it is less clear that an out of state resident with taxable personal property would have been completely exempted. For example, if slaves and livestock was taxable, should a non-resident be completely exempt from payment simply because he was residing in another state? What I am basically saying is that if Charles ROPER was the OWNER of the Dinwiddie plantation and operated the plantation as nominee for his mother or for her benefit during the final years of her life, he might very well appear both as the owner of record in the land records and also have been the subject of Personal Property Tax whether or note actually a resident. Moving to a second background fact to be considered in conjunction with the former analysis, while Joel ROPER was LIVING and residing adjacent to his elderly mother (IF Ann Goodwyn ROPER was still alive), any urgency in Charles ROPER returning to Dinwiddie might have been de minimis. With a good plantation overseer and a son living nearby, Charles ROPER might very well have maintained a pleasant life ELSEWHERE out of state. Even if Ann Goodwyn ROPER was then already dead, IF Charles ROPER was primarily seated ELSEWHERE, he probably could have relied on his brother to at least look in on the overseer to assure that the plantation was profitably operated. However, upon Joel ROPER's death, Charles ROPER would have been presented with at least two problems, and possibly even a third. First, Charles ROPER might have needed to return to oversee the operation of the Dinnwiddie plantation once he could no longer rely upon his brother to look in on its operation. Second, Charles ROPER might have needed to come to the aid and assistance of his widowed sister-in-law who still had young children. Third, Charles ROPER might have needed to come to the assistance of another widowed niece by marriage, such as Nancy ROPER, if Nancy were married to a nephew rather than Charles ROPER's son Joseph, etc. Fourth, Joel ROPER may very well have attended to the spiritual needs of the Dinwiddie Four Forks area after completing his religious training. Joel ROPER's death may have also created a vacuum at the ROPER Church. At some juncture, following Ann Goodwyn ROPER's death, Joel ROPER's death or just with the completion of some life stage, Charles and Elizabeth (Butler) ROPER may have simply decided "it's time to go home to Dinwiddie". To this, I will only ADD that it is UNCLEAR where HOME was for Elizabeth BUTLER because NO ONE HAS EVER BOTHERED TO INVESTIGATE Elizabeth BUTLER's line. BUTLER is a very prominent family name in South Carolina. I haven't made any inquiry or investigation of the BUTLERs. But it would not at all surprise me to discover that South Carolina was HOME for Elizabeth. * * * I am NOT asking you or anyone else to reach any firm conclusions based upon this analysis. Rather, I am simply pointing out that there are some considerations that ought to at least be weighed in assessing the data. IF Charles and Nancy Butler ROPER were continuously residing in Dinwiddie, this ought to have been reflected in OTHER extant records. Based upon my own anecdotal observations, what I see is mostly an ABSENCE of the sorts of records which would seem to refelct that continuous presence. Instead, I see some indications that Charles ROPER might have lived elsewhere and then returned to Dinwiddie. Most problematic is the appearance of a Charles ROPER in Pendleton, SC, who was born before 1766. This Charles ROPER is shown in the 1800 and 1810 Census data and then simply DISAPPEARS with seemingly no extant probate record. The fictionalists explain this sort of problem away by simply declaring that the records must be lost. This is simply LAZY and DISHONEST genealogy. If the Charles ROPER in Pendleton, SC, living near a Joseph ROPER who looks suspiciously LIKE his son, is someone OTHER than the Charles ROPER born to Charles ROPER and Ann GOODWYN, someone needs to EXPLAIN WHERE HE CAME FROM BEFORE 1800 and WHERE HE WENT AFTER 1810. Until someone can EXPLAIN AWAY this Charles ROPER, there will remain some lurking doubts about Charles ROPER's presence in Dinwiddie, since there is NO OTHER KNOWN Charles ROPER except for David ROPER's son Charles. It is very easy to construct various ascriptions by OMITTING and EXCLUDING certain inconvenient facts. It is much harder to construct a paradigm that explains ALL of the extant and readily available data. Your thoughts on the identity and relationship of the Charles ROPER found in Pendleton, SC, is solicited and appreciated. If you know or suspect where he fits in, I would welcome your insight! 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>