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/1923.1.1.4/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: I want to share a quick note on my thinking and the evidence regarding Joseph ROPER, of Pendleton, SC, and Lincoln, TN, as well as Joseph ROPER, son of Charles ROPER. First, I AGREE with you that the appearance of Joseph ROPER on an adjacent Census page in Pendleton, SC, to that of several BRACKINs and the subsequent appearance of BRACKIN as a given name within the Lincoln, TN, ROPER family very closely links Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, TN, with the Joseph ROPER, of Pendleton and supports a very strong inference that this is the SAME Joseph ROPER. Similarly, the age given for Joseph ROPER in Pendleton, is reasonably consistent with the age of the Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, TN: Joseph ROPER: 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 [Pendleton, SC 1800] 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] As you noted, the Joseph ROPER in Lincoln is shown to have been over age 45 (b bef 1776) and the Joseph ROPER, of Pendleton, is shown to be age 16 to 25 (b abt 1775-84). These age ranges coincide rather precisely at the year 1775, if BOTH Census returns are to be taken as correct. On the other hand, either of the Census returns might have simply put this Joseph ROPER into the WRONG category, so if the 1800 Census return was in error and UNDERSTATED Joseph ROPER's age, he could have been older than 25. If the 1820 Census return was in error, Joseph could have been younger than 45. It seems somewhat LESS likely that both Census reports are in error. And it is easier to imagine an error of a year or two in age throwing Joseph into the wrong category. It is somewhat harder to explain larger errors. Thus, in stating that Joseph ROPER was born abt 1775, we are probably suggesting an inappropriate precision, though it is difficult to justify some other particular range. Even so, I am going to rather arbitrarily use /- three years and suggest that Joseph was born abt 1772-1778. But the data is also somewhat discordant with the possibility that Joseph ROPER is the son of John ROPER, of Pendleton, SC, at least when one looks at the timing and sequence of the other children. James ROPER seems to have been born abt 1786. John ROPER seems to have been born in 1788. And David ROPER seems to have been born in 1792. If Joseph ROPER was the son of John ROPER, of Pendleton, then there was an eight or more year gap between the birth of Joseph ROPER and James ROPER. Of course, this gap might very well have been filed by the births of some daughters who had already left the household by 1790 or children who did NOT survive. In SUPPORT of the possibility that Joseph was born much earlier than the other sons, is the ABSENCE of one of the sons from John ROPER's 1800 Census record. Thus, we go from three younger males in 1790 to four in 1800: John ROPER: 1 - 3 - 2 -- 0 [Pendleton, SC 1790] John ROPER: 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 [Pendleton, SC 1800] But we infer that since two of the sons in 1800 were under age 10 that John ROPER must have had a total of FIVE sons. But here is where the evidence somewhat works against the ascription of this Joseph ROPER as another son of John ROPER, at least if the 1820 Census return is correct. Realize that the 1790 Census had only three categories for white persons. First was males age 16 or more. Next was males under age 16. And finally, one category included ALL females. Thus, the 1790 Census implicitly tells us that ALL of John ROPER's sons were then UNDER age 16 of born AFTER 1774. This is actually still consistent with Joseph ROPER being born precisely in 1775. He could have been age 15 in 1790, age 25 in 1800 and age 45 in 1820, lacing each of these categories EXACTLY at the margin. This is still reasonably consistent with the OTHER information imparted by the Census. The 1800 Census record for Joseph ROPER clearly reflects what appears to be a newly married young couple with only ONE child under age five: Joseph ROPER: 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 [Pendleton, SC 1800] This seems most consistent with Joseph having married within about one to five years of the 1800 Census. If he had married sooner, there would probably be more children. If he had only just married in late 1799 or early 1800, his wife probably would NOT have yet had a child. Considering the age range shown for 1800, that Joseph was age 16 to 25 (b abt 1775-84), we also have at least some reason to suspect that he would have been at the upper end of that age range even absent the 1820 Census return, since it would have been LESS LIKELY that he would have married at age 14 or 15 (neccessary if he was only age 16 in 1800) or even that he married before ago 20. In my view, even absent the 1820 Census, simply based upon likelihood of marriage at different ages, the 1800 Census data supports an inference that Joseph was born abt 1775-80 and was age 20 to 25 at the 1800 Census enumeration. Thus, IF this Joseph ROPER is John ROPER's son, we might reasonably truncate the implied range around 1775 recognizing that going much BELOW 1775 would contradict what is shown by the 1790 Census data AND also conflict with what we expect as to the likely age of marriage. * * * Overall, it seems to me that the data is reasonably consistent with the possibility that Joseph ROPER might be John ROPER's son, and that, if so, he might have been born about 1775-80, with 1775 the expected value. Joseph could have been a son by a first marriage of John ROPER's punctuated by some gap in the children's ages. * * * * * Next, consider briefly the facts that are known about Joseph ROPER, son of Charles ROPER and Elizabeth BUTLER, about which we know very little. In my post "", I identified the possible birth sequence and years of births of Charles and Elizabeth Roper BUTLER's children as: Nancy ROPER (b 06 Apr 1777) m Benjamin MOORE on 22 Dec 1796 Elizabeth ROPER (b abt 1780 - Dinwiddie, VA) m Banister SHACKLEFORD Goodwin ROPER (b bef 1784), died in youth Martha ROPER m Richard LEDBETTER Joseph ROPER m Miss WHITEHEAD Dolly ROPER (b 01 Nov 1790) m Louis MEREDITH Whether Goodwyn came before or after Martha and Joseph remains in doubt. It is certainly POSSIBLE that the list simply was NOT in birth order, though there is some support for the idea that it was. Stating that Goodwyn was born before 1784 is consistent with his being born in 1778, 1779, 1780 (with Elizabeth), 1781, 1782, or 1783. If Goodwyn was added as an afterthought, it is equally possible that Goodwyn was born before Elizabeth as that he was born afterwards. If the list imparts birth order EXCEPT FOR Goodwyn, it seems most likely that Charles ROPER's son Joseph ROPER was born abt 1781-89, though I believe that Dolly ROPER's age was understated and that she was probably actually born before 1790. At the HIGHER end of the age range and lower end of the year range for Joseph, Charles ROPER's son Joseph ROPER could therefore plausibly be the Joseph ROPER found in Pendleton in 1800. For example, suppose that this Joseph ROPER was bornin 1781. He might have married Miss WHITEHEAD at age 18 (1799) had one child and been within the age range 18 to 25 in 1790: Joseph ROPER: 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 [Pendleton, SC 1800] In my view, the Pendleton record is completely CONSISTENT with the possibility that this Joseph ROPER was Charles ROPER's son, IF Joseph ROPER was actually born in about 1781-2 and probably incompatible with this possibility if Charles' son Joseph ROPER was born about 1787-8. Thus, the importance of further establishing Joseph ROPER's year of birth or some better indication of his whereabouts and disposition between 1790 and 1800. Realize as well that what we know about the YEAR of Joseph W. ROPER's birth is also quite consistent with the Pendleton record. Joseph W. ROPER is shown to be age 47 in the 1850 Census and was consistently shown to be born after 1800 in the previous Census data for Dinwiddie. Thus, we have a very young couple of rather precisely the correct AGE to be Joseph W. ROPER's parents. Then we have the further natty problem that there was also a Charles ROPER in Pendleton during this interval: Charles ROPER:.. 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 -- 4 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 -- 0 - 0 [Pendleton, SC 1800] Chas. ROPER:.... 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 1 [Pendleton, SC 1810] This Charles ROPER is over age 45 in 1800 (b bef 1766). Though the COUNTS for this Charles ROPER seem incompatible with the family of Charles and Elizabeth Butler ROPER, this is ONLY the case if one excludes the possibility that a son or daughter and grandchildren could have been present in Charles ROPER's household. Of course, you have shown that Charles ROPER was present in Dinwiddie. But the land records actually do NOT prove this. * * * There is also some rather stark contrary evidence. Joseph W. ROPER's 1850 Census record shows him to have been born in Virginia rather than South Carolina. Joseph's daughter also showed Joseph's place of birth to be Virginia in the 1880 Census record. Thus, IF the Joseph ROPER in Pendleton was Charles ROPER's son, then he would have migrated back to Dinwiddie by 1803. OR, if Miss WHITEHEAD was from Dinwiddie, she might have returned home to have her child. * * * * * I want to emphasize that I am NOT taking the position that the Joseph ROPER in Pendleton was Charles ROPER's son. But rather, I believe that we cannot yet EXCLUDE that possiblity based upon readily available extant evidence. IF we were to conclude that Joseph ROPER, of Pendleton, SC, WAS Charles ROPER's son, this would present the additional question as to whether this meant that Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, TN, was also Charles ROPER's son, or whether it simply demonstrated that the ascription that Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, was the SAME Joseph ROPER shown in the 1800 Census record. * * * Overall, I think it is MORE LIKELY that Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, TN, was another son of John ROPER, and that Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, is one and the same as Joseph ROPER, of Pendleton, SC, but I am NOT willing to reach a more definitive conclusion without further study of additional primary records, especially the Personal Property Tax records for Dinwiddie. 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/1932.10.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Bill, I'm generally share your misgivings about the ascription of Nancy Roper being the wife of Joseph Roper and the mother of Joseph W. Roper. We do need to find the Personal Property Tax records. As far as the Bible listing the wife of Joseph Roper as Miss Whitehead, perhaps the person who transcribed the entries from the original Bible could not read the first name and just put in Miss Whitehead. It does seem rather formal. The transcriber seems to have had a problem with the name Laura when she wrote something like David and Cearell Roper as the twins born in 1742, rather than writing Laura. 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, Whitehead, Crowder Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1932.10/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: I wanted to share one additional misgiving about the ascription of Joseph W. ROPER as Nancy ROPER's son. The MOORE Family Bible merely shows this entry: "Joseph ROPER m Miss WHITEHEAD" The MOORE family KNEW Miss WHITEHEAD's surname, but seem NOT to have known or to have forgotten her given name. Realize that this was the Bible of Benjamin MOORE, grandson of Charles ROPER and Ann GOODWYN, and Nancy ROPER, daughter of Charles ROPER and Elizabeth BUTLER. Benjamin and Nancy Roper MOORE were living in Williamson County, TN, adjacent to David W. ROPER and Rebecca Roper CROWDER for a couple of decades. Both David and Rebecca had migrated to Williamson from Dinwiddie after living alongside Nancy ROPER of Dinwiddie throughout their lives. As you noted within your post, there was also ongoing correspondence between members of the MOORE family and relatives in Dinwiddie after the MOOREs settled in Tennessee, of which we have extant surviving examples. This raises a rather troubling question. If Nancy ROPER, of Dinwiddie, was Joseph ROPER's widow, WHY DIDN'T ANYONE IN THE MOORE FAMILY KNOW HER GIVEN NAME? It is EASY to imagine that a cousin living in a distant place might forget (or never know) the given name of a cousin's spouse who married and DIED YOUNG, especially if the cousin was living at some place distant from the family seat and was NOT someone with whom the family was well acquainted. It is much harder to reconcile the idea that the names of various widows living at the very seat of the ancient family plantation and residing not merely in close proximity but literally ADJACENT would have been UNKNOWN to a double cousin couple like Benjamin and Nancy Roper MOORE. This is all the more true given the appearance of David W. ROPER and Rebecca Roper CROWDER in Williamson County. I think the case that Joseph W. ROPER was a son of Joseph ROPER and a grandson of Charles and Elizabeth Butler ROPER is very persuasive and reasonably conclusive. But the case and evidence for Nancy ROPER as a widow of this Joseph ROPER seems to me to remain somewhat thin. I DO think you have laid out the case nicely, such as it is. But the Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax records would very likely prove to be reasonably conclusive if anyone from this family ever takes an interest in the matter. 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, Moore, Shackleford, Ledbetter, Whitehead, Meredith Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1932.5/mb.ashx Message Board Post: In identifying the children of Charles and Eliabeth Butler ROPER, as shown in the MOORE Family Bible, we have the following information: Nancy ROPER (b 06 Apr 1777) m Benjamin MOORE on 22 Dec 1796 Elizabeth ROPER m Banister SHCKLEFORD Martha ROPER m Richard LEDBETTER Joseph ROPER m Miss WHITEHEAD Dolly ROPER m Louis MEREDITH Goodwin ROPER, died in youth Generally, I believe that almost any listing of children of this sort implicitly supports at least a WEAK INFERENCE that the children were listed in BIRTH ORDER. Such an inference is far from conclusive. But we have some other information which both supports and also contradicts this inference. Nancy ROPER's birth date is given. The MOORE Family Bible came from Nancy's family. Within my posts on Elizabeth Roper SHACKLEFORD and Mary "Dolly" Roper MEREDITH very specific informatioin about their likely birth year is given. I have some misgivings that Dolly's birth year is correct. I think she may have shaved a year or two OFF her age by her date of death. But Eliabeth Roper SHACKLEFORD seems to have been born about 1780. Accepting without concluding Dolly Roper MEREDITH's date of birth as 01 Nov 1790, we then have this data: Nancy ROPER (b 06 Apr 1777) m Benjamin MOORE on 22 Dec 1796 Elizabeth ROPER (b abt 1780 - Dinwiddie, VA) m Banister SHACKLEFORD Martha ROPER m Richard LEDBETTER Joseph ROPER m Miss WHITEHEAD Dolly ROPER (b 01 Nov 1790) m Louis MEREDITH Goodwin ROPER, died in youth Elizabeth's birth year is reasonably consistent with the idea that sh emight be the second child, supporting the inference that the children were listed in birth order. The ten year interval between Elizabeth's and Dolly's purported year of birth seems a little long given the presence of only two children. More problematic is Goodwin, who is shown on the 1800 Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax List as being over age 16 that year. Since we haven't seen the previous Tax Lists between 1782 and 1800, we do NOT KNOW the first year that Goodwin appeared on the list. Neither do we know when Joseph first appeared on the Dinwiddie Personal Property Tax Lists. But to the extent that the 1800 Tax List is correct, Goodwin would seem to have been born BEFORE 1784. It seems to me that this is readily reconcilable with the idea that the list in the Bible is generally in birth order. Whoever transcribed the information may have begun with the LIVING children in birth order, also showing the spouses and then added Goodwin, the unmarried and deceased child in as an afterthought. It seems likely that Goodwin is the third or fourth child. His more precise year of birth may be ascertainable by looking at the Personal Property Tax Lists for 1796, 1797, 1798 and 1799. Thus we might rearrange the list to reflect: Nancy ROPER (b 06 Apr 1777) m Benjamin MOORE on 22 Dec 1796 Elizabeth ROPER (b abt 1780 - Dinwiddie, VA) m Banister SHACKLEFORD Goodwin ROPER (b bef 1784), died in youth Martha ROPER m Richard LEDBETTER Joseph ROPER m Miss WHITEHEAD Dolly ROPER (b 01 Nov 1790) m Louis MEREDITH I suspect that Joseph ROPER was probably born between abt 1785 and 1788. His more precise year of birth may be ascertainable from the Personal Property Tax Lists of 1801, 1802, 1803 or 1804, if Dinwiddie continued to tax white males over age 16 and later tax lists if the tax started at age 21. (It seems likely that even though a male might be taxable at age 16, the tax was probably due from the father until the son reached age 21.) 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: kellietho Surnames: Roper, Ainsworth, McLemore Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1925.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.3.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I will definitely take a look at all of these families that you have mentioned to see if there is any record that could show a definitive connection between any of them. I am most appreciative of your insight into other avenues of investigation, because I was wondering where I would go in terms of my furthering my Ainsworth family! It will be most interesting to search more for Margaret Roper and see if we can find if she is, in fact, the same Margaret Roper living with Joshua Roper in the 1870 Census for Lincoln, TN! Also, I am not sure if you have found the 1850 Census for Joseph L. McLemore, but I believe that I might have found it. There is a J L McLimore living in District 12, Monroe County, TN. He is 35-years-old, and is enumerated with: Sarah E. McLimore, 11 Margarett McLimore, 9 Archy A. McLimore, 7 The presence of Archy A. McLimore, age 7, makes me believe this is the Joseph L. McLemore living in Roane County, in 1860. 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, Shackleford Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1932.4/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: I want to call your attention and that of those interested in Charles ROPER and Elizabeth BUTLER to my thread at theRootsWeb SHACKLEFORD Message Board: "Banister SHACKLEFORD m Elizabeth ROPER abt 1795-8" (7 Jun 2014 4:13PM GMT) http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.shackleford/364/mb.ashx After my initial post, I found some additional useful information about Banister SHACKLEFORD's family and added this reply to my initial post: "Charles R. SHACKLEFORD (b abt 1803 - Nottoway, VA), Son of Banister and Elizabeth SHACKLEFORD" (13 Jun 2014 7:05PM GMT ) http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.shackleford/364.1/mb.ashx I am NOT going to endeavor to reprise all of the information appearing in those posts, but I will quickly abstract it here. * * * Recall that the Census data for Virginia is LOST for the 1790 and 1800 Census. Thus, the 1810 Census is the first to give us a look at Virginia households. Bannister SHACKLEFORD is enumerated in Nottoway, Virginia, in 1810: Banister SHACKLEFORD: 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 -- 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 5 [Nottoway, VA 1810] Banister SHACKLEFORD seems to be age 26 to 44 (b abt 1766-84) with a female (presumably wife Elizabeth Roper SHACKLEFORD of similar age. The children seem to be consistent in age with a marriage a few years before 1800 (abt 1795-98). * * * I have NOT yet found the 1820 Census record. In 1830, Elizabeth SHACKLEFORD is enumerated residing in Nottoway County: Elizabeth SHACKLEFORD: 0 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Nottoway, VA 1830] Elizabeth is shown to be age 50 to 59 (1771-80). Elizabeth seems to have two sons age 15 to 19 (b abt 1811-5), one presumably Joel G. SHACKLEFORD. There are also two younger females in this household. * Charles R. SHACKLEFORD is enumerated residing in Dinwiddie, Dinwiddie County, Virginia in 1830: Charles R. SHACKLEFORD: 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Dinwiddie, VA 1830] Also on this Census page is the household of Lewis MEREDITH. Lewis and Mary Roper MEREDITH are Charles SHACKLEFORD's uncle and aunt (Mary "Dolly" Roper MEREDITH is the sister of Charles' mother Elizabeth ROPER. * * * Joel G. SHACKLEFORD is enumerated residing in Nottoway in 1840: Joel G. SHACKLEFORD: 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Nottoway, VA 1840] Elizabeth Roper SHACKLEFORD appears to be residing in Joel SHACKLEFORD's household. Charles SHACKLEFORD is also residing in Nottoway in 1840: Charles SHACKLEFORD: 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Nottoway, VA 1840] * * * In 1850, Elizabeth SHACKLEFORD, age 70, Female, born "Dinwiddie", is enumerated residing with her son Charles R. SHACKLEFORD, age 47, and his wife in Nottoway County. This reasonably conclusively fixes Elizabeth's year of birth as about 1780. The affirmative showing of Dinwiddie as Elizabeth ROPER's place of birth would tend to support Charles ROPER and Eliabeth BUTLER's presence in Dinwiddie in 1780. 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: dskeith1950 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1936/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Martin Keith, b. 1792, m. Jane Roper, moved to Murray Co. Ga Joel Keith, b. 1797, m. Jane Roper, moved to Jefferson Co., AL, via Ga. Can anyone help on the girls parents? 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, Meredith Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1932.3/mb.ashx Message Board Post: It seems appropriate to crosslink my prior thread discussing Charles ROPER's daughter Mary ROPER: "Lewis MEREDITH and Mary ROPER (b 01 Nov 1790 - VA, d 17 Jan 1854 - VA), daughter of Charles ROPER and Elizabeth BUTLER" (7 Jun 2014 6:23PM GMT) http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1922/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/1932.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I would further add a note about the early Methodist clergy, a subject about which I continue to learn. I haven't seen any really good reference that explains this well and have instead stitched together an understanding by the study of many early primary records. I mention this because it is KNOWN that Charles ROPER was solemniing marriages in Dinwiddie and that he was a Methodist minister. But calling Charles a minister is actually probably a misnomer. Charles ROPER seems more likely to have been merely a Methodist preacher, though possilby ordained as a deacon (maybe by Bishop Asbury himself). The process of becoming a Methodist minister was very FORMAL and seemingly well documented. The process of becoming a Methodist preacher was equally informal and mostly reflected in only records of a particular congregation. The Methodist Church held annual "Conferences" for various regions and each regional conference acted independently to select and ultimately ordain ministers by a vote of the existing ministers in that Conference. The first step was to be "Admitted on Trial". This seems to have meant that a particular promising Methodist preacher or exhorter was selected by the Conference to be a minister for a trial period of one or more years. Once admitted on trial, the new minister was assigned to a circuit and then pretty much lived out of his saddle, traveling from church to church and conducting services on whichever day of the week he arrived there. In places where there wasn't a Methodist Church building, services were conducted in a meeting house, a private home or outdoors. In the summer, Methodist church "camps" were quite common. People came from some distance and encamped at a place where a Methodist minister conducted a revival of sorts and services over a several day period. Only after the minister admitted on trial had performed to the satisfaction of the Conference was a candidate admitted to the "full connection" by a further vote of the ministers at the annual Conference. ALL Methodist ministers were EXPECTED TO RIDE CIRCUIT and exceptions were only made, again by a vote of the annual Conference, for health and family reasons. A minister could be "seated" at a place for an extended period ONLY because of some disability. Ministers were REASSIGNED from one circuit to another ANNUALLY. Thus, by definition, those who had adopted the lifestyle of a Methodist minister were not only in the saddle moving DURING the year, but at the conclusion of a one year circuit assignment, they would then be typically REASSIGNED to another different circuit. Thus, to identify someone as an "itinerent Methodist minister", as I have seen in some older accounts in ROPER family histories involves a certain amount of tautology/redundancy, since ALL Methodist ministers were essentially itinerant. This was the very nature of the circuit work! Methodist preachers might be attached to a particular church or congregation. Methodist ministers belonged in the saddle riding from place to place on circuit. * * * In my view, this is one of the reasons that there seem to be NO RECORDS that Rev. David ROPER, of Rutherford, NC, was a Methodist minister. He WASN'T. He was more likely a Methodist preacher for a local congregation. Charles ROPER seems likely to have preached from the Roper Church in Dinwiddie. Charles ROPER was probably also a preacher, possibly ordained as a Deacon. Charles ROPER seems never to have been a Methodist minister. The PUBLISHED records of the Methodist Church conferences shows ONLY those who were elected to various roles in the church (e.g. "Admitted on Trial", "Admitted to the Full Connection", etc.), as well as assignments to various circuits. Those who aspired to election and might have been candidates for election are NOT mentioned in the published records. It is UNCLEAR whether the extant original underlying records from which the published histories were compiled contains the identities of Methodist preachers who sought election, but failed. A study of Methodist archival material is sorely needed to further advance ROPER genealogy! * * * There is precisely ONE ROPER in the South who was actually ADMITTED as a Methodist minister by the formal Methodist Conferences. Appallingly, this ROPER ancestor has been victimied by much of the most egregious and offensive of the genealogical fraud washing across the Internet. This was Frederick ROPER. The family history fictionalists who INVENT ancestors, invent and alter facts and create various fraudulent ascriptions and lineages have HIJACKED some of the truthful information about Frederick ROPER and FALSELY ASCRIBED IT to the purely FICTIONAL "Richard Frederick ROPER" who is asserted to have been married to Ann LEWIS, of Northampton. The REAL Frederick ROPER was the ONLY ROPER who was ACTUALLY a circuit riding Methodist minister in the American South. He did NOT die in Greenville and he was NEVER married to Ann LEWIS. But an appreciation of the actual role of Frederick ROPER in the Church can inform our study and understanding of other members of Charles ROPER's family who were also heavily involved in the Methodist Church. It seems to me to be axiomatic that is one aspires to a particular profession or calling that one might look to someone perceived to have already been successful at that calling in pursuing such a career, particularly if the successful person is RELATED. Thus, it seems to me that IF Charles ROPER ever thought that he might want to be a Methodist MINISTER as opposed to a Methodist preacher, one thing that he might do is study under others who had made some successful study of the Bible and had experience preaching. Charles ROPER's brother David was SIXTEEN YEARS OLDER than Charles ROPER, Jr.. Jesse ROPER was SEVEN YEARS OLDER than Charles ROPER, Jr. Joel ROPER was eight years YOUNGER than Charles ROPER. It makes sense that Charles ROPER would have spent at least some time with his two older brothers in preparing for the ministry. It also makes sense that he might have sought out assistance of Frederick ROPER, who had actually been formally admitted as a minister on trial. This may have involved spending some time away from Dinwiddie. Whether this was a matter of weeks, months, or more than a year remains to be determined. Continued ownership of land in Dinwiddie is hardly conclusive as to whether Charles ROPER was in Dinwiddie during any particular year, including 1790. 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/1932.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: I have been remiss in commenting and acknowleding your EXCELLENT POST on Charles ROPER, of Dinwiddie!! I am really pleased to learn that the Dinwiddie Land Tax records are now online and it is very helpful for you to have reviewed these year by year. This is precisely the sort of effort that is sorely needed in EVERY VIRGINIA COUNTY where ROPERs resided before 1850. This is going to necessarily be a short post due to some time constraints. But I took a bit of a recreational break to help with the family of James ROPER over the weekend and at least some response to your post is now long overdue. I will endeavor to add some additional more thoughtful and in depth comments in a few weeks. I want to take some exception though to one statement you made and to distinguish what can be reasonably inferred from this data in one respect. This is your statement: "From these records, we learn that Charles Roper, Jr. is consistently shown residing in Dinwiddie County, VA from 1782. However, I will now turn to the Dinwiddie population census records, which are extant from 1810 onward." The first sentence is actually an erronoeus conclusion. While it is certainly TRUE that land ownership is usually highly correlated with residence, such ownership is hardly conclusive. One can OWN land in place one does NOT reside. And whenever one OWNS LAND, one is subject to land taxes. Thus, the VALID conclusion that one can draw from the Dinwiddie Land Tax data you cite is that Charles ROPER CONTINUOUSLY OWNED LAND in Dinwiddie during the periods you cite. Charles ROPER might or might NOT have lived there during the time periods in question. The BETTER source of ANNUAL DATA reflecting ongoing residence is the PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX data. In antiquity, the predominant source of tax revenue other than land taxes was a per capita tax (or in earlier periods tithe) payable annualy priamrily based upon the presence of taxable adult males. Additional amounts were due in respect of a variety of other kinds of property ranging from slaves, to livestock, to carriages, billiard tables or ordinary (inn/tavern) licenses. Since the counties were free to tax different things on different bases, the lists vary from county to county and from year to year. But most of these lists are extant for MOST Virginia counties from 1782 through at least 1850. While Virginia taxpayers were subject to LAND TAXES where ever they owned land, under Virginia law each citizen was only subject to Personel Property Tax in a single county. Thus, a large landowner, with residences in multiple places would only have been subject to tax in ONE of those places. As each young man reached majority, he became TAXABLE under the personal property taxes and therefore very often appeared for the FIRST TIME in the tax lists the year he turned age 21. Some lists show the young men over age 21 resident with a particular taxpayer as chargeable to that taxpayer, though this was no doubt a matter of accounting and convenience, as every person of age 21 was truly liable for their own tax. The Personal Property Tax records therefore give the single best indication of continuous presence. IF Charles ROPER removed himself from Dinwiddie for any extended period of time, it seems likely that he would have taken the position with taxing authorities that he was EXEMPT from Personal Property Tax in that county due to non-residence. The Personal Property Tax records are certainly not infallible either, nor are they absolutely conclusive of residence, but are probably at least the best evidence of such residence. (Since a Virginia taxpayer was only liable for Personal Property Tax in a single county, it seems likely that those who could arguably make the case that they were resident in one or more county probably would tend to elect to pay tax in the LOWER TAX county.) * * * I want to make a similar point about what is actually implied by appearance within a Census, as this is another matter about which there is some confusion. Conduct of Census enumerations by sovereign authorities seems to have been doen for millenia. One ancient approach was to require that everyone return "home" to be properly counted during the enumeration. But such a rule is inherently disruptive to commerce. Another approach to avoid double counting is to conduct the enumeration everywhere on the SAME DAY and to simply count EVERYONE PRESENT, residents and transients alike. This is the approach adopted in the United States during most of its history. Thus, appearance within a Census does NOT necessarily mean that the person enumerated RESIDES at the place where they were enumerated. It simply means that the person was PRESENT in that place at the date of the enumeration. Of course, since MOST PEOPLE are likely to be found at their homes and the early canvasses during periods when literacy was far less universal, the canvass necessarily took some time and when a family wasn't present or readily available the enumerator would likely RETURN. Moreover, in defining physical presence, there is a big difference between someone travelling or temporarily residing in another county or state (where they OUGHT TO BE COUNTED) and someone coming to and from the market or town or visiting a neighbor, etc. Thus the question is more along the lines of whether a person is residing at the place of enumeration AT THE DATE of the enumeration rather than whether the person is physically present when the enumerator visited. I mention this because it would be somewhat problematic with respect to family members who were traveling, perhaps for an extended visit at the date of the enumeration. Likewise, enumeration of a Methodist minister riding a circuit and possibly living mostly in his saddle would be problematic. I am certainly NOT arguing that we ought to ordinarily refrain from concluding that a person enumerated in a place might not live there. USUALLY, this is a very reasonable conclusion. Instead, I am merely pointing out that in certain respects the Personal Property Tax data is somewhat MORE conclusive of residence in a place than inclusion in a Census enumeration. If a person was living temporarily in a place, that person might be included in the Census, but NOT be liable for Personal Property Tax. The Personal Property Tax lists have the advantage of showing the LIKELY PRESENCE of a taxpayer EVERY YEAR rather than simply every TEN YEARS. The Personal Property Tax lists can also give very good insight into the coming of age of male taxpayers. By contrast, these Tax Lists do NOT usually show the entire household size or composition. The Census data gives us a much more complete picture of how many are living in each household and the age breakdowns, etc. The real value in this data is in reading these records in conjunction. * * * I am NOT arguing that Charles ROPER was NOT a resident of Dinwiddie during some or even much of the time covered by the Dinwiddie Land Tax data. There seems to be abundant evidence of residence in Dinwiddie during at least portions of this interval. Instead, I am merely suggesting that the careful genealogist ought to place greater reliance on the Personal Property Tax returns and that these tax records should be read in conjunction with the Census and Land Tax records. * * * I am still of the belief that Charles ROPER, Jr., son of Charles ROPER and Ann GOODWYN, was the Charles ROPER enumerated in Rutherford, NC, in 1790. Since any Census simply reflects the presence of those those then resident in a place, Charles ROPER's presence in Rutherford that year does NOT imply that he lived there for any extended period. He may have lived there only briefly. One possiblity that cannot be discounted is that he may have been studying for the Methodist ministry under his UNCLE Rev. David ROPER. Upon completion of this study, he may have returned to Dinwiddie. Since there was no formal study period, the length of any such study, is very unclear. The Personal Property Tax records may show us more and help us to obtain a better understanding. In a future post, I will elaborate on OTHER EVIDENCE that Charles ROPER WAS in Rutherford. There is more than a little evidence of this. 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/1925.5/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Careful inspection of the Census record of Joshua ROPER, age 62, of Lincoln, TN, shows the presence of a Margaret ROPER, shown to be age 18, residing within Joshua's household. See: "United States Census, 1870," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MDDD-FR1 : accessed 11 Aug 2014), J J Roper, Tennessee, United States; citing p. 24, family 179, NARA microfilm publication M593, FHL microfilm 000553043. There are several things that are particularly distinguishable about this Margaret ROPER. First, Margaret is shown to be age 18, only about three years YOUNGER than the Margaret ROPER shown within James and Margaret ROPER's household in 1850. Second, Margaret appears OUT OF SEQUENCE with respect to the ages of the other children in this house, AFTER the youngest of Joshua ROPER's children, William ROPER, age 13. Third, there is NO Margaret ROPER shown within Joshua ROPER's household in the 1860 Census record. Joshua and Jane ROPER show these children in 1860: Thomas, age 19 Martha, age 18 Milley, age 16 Bracken, age 14 Joseph, age 12 Elizabeth, age 10 Nancy, age 8 John, age 7 William, age 5 See: "United States Census, 1860," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/M8TN-4RX : accessed 11 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 appears to me that this information supports a reasonably strong inference that the Margaret ROPER shown in Joshua ROPER's household in 1870 is NOT Joshua's daughter. While this Margaret could be a widowed daughter-in-law, another rather distinct possibility is that following the death of Mary Roper McLEMORE and in the aftermath of tough conditions in post-Civil War Tennessee, that Margaret ROPER, the grandmother has syndicated out the responsibility of overseeing her young grandchildren to her husband's relatives. Note that we have already found James R. AINSWORTH in the household of John ROPER's grandson in Missouri. Is Margaret living with her mother's cousin Joshua ROPER? Ascription of Joshua as a NEPHEW of James ROPER and cousin of Mary ROPER is admittedly SPECULATIVE, but I had previously noted that John ROPER, of Pendleton seemed to have FOUR SONS. One of these may have been the Joseph ROPER who settled in Lincoln County, TN. The Margaret ROPER residing in Lincoln, TN, in 1870, is meritworthy of further study to ascertain whether she could be James ROPER's granddaughter enumerated in James' household in 1850 and in Joseph McLEMORE's household in 1860. Following the migrations of the orphans may actually be the KEY to establishing some of the relationships! 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, Ainsworth Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1925.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.3.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: One rather fascinating fact showing the extent of the proximity of the ROPERs and AINSWORTH in Burke is the appearance of David ROPER as a juror in a suit against James AINSWORTH in which a suggestion of death was entered followed by the substitution of James AINSWORTH and William AINSWORTH as administrators of James AINSWORTH's Estate. This took place in 1818: An Image of this document, as well as other documents from this case are available online at the FamilySearch.org site: "North Carolina, Estate Files, 1663-1979," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1961-26686-3489-28?cc=1911121 : accessed 11 Aug 2014), Burke County > A > Ainsworth, James (1816) > image 5 of 7; citing State Archives, Raleigh. While this record does NOT directly connect either Monroe/McMinn/Blount, TN, ROPERs to Burke, NC, nor the family of William AINSWORTH to that of James AINSWORTH, of Burke, it reinforces my belief that the Burke AINSWORTH family is worthy of further investigation! 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, Ainsworth, Moody Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1925.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.3/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Kellie: There are few enough AINSWORTH in the United States in the period prior to 1850, especially in the South, that there are only a handful of places to look for records connecting the prior generations. While it is plausible that a New England AINSWORTH family migrated to Tennessee, it is far more likely that the Tennessee AINSWORTHs migrated from North Carolina or South Carolina, which were more frequent sources of early Tennessee pioneers. While it is still somewhat premature to be looking for William AINSWORTH's grandfather while the identity of his parents remains uncertain, even so it perhaps bears mention that there are only 32 AINSWORTH / AYNSWORTH households nationally in the 1790 U.S. Census. Of these, only are located in the South: James AINSWORTH, of Burke, North Carolina Levin AINSWORTH, of St. Thomas, Cheraws District, SC Levin AINSWORTH, Jr., of St. Thomas, Cheraws District, SC William AINSWORTH, of Laurens, SC * You should probably also be looking at HAYNESWORTH and HAINESWORTH records. * I would call your particular attention to the James AINSWORTH shown to be residing in Burke, NC, in 1790. Burke, NC, was a place the ROPERs were also settled from a very early date. This James ROPER seems to be residing in the area of the 10th Company. He is enumerated adjacent to a William MOODY. [Ancestry Image 8 of 11] James ROPER is enumerated within the 12th Company for Burke, two Census pages later at Image 10 of 11. * * * The John ROPER we suspect may have been James ROPER's (b abt 1786 - NC) father is enumerated in Pendleton, SC, in 1790. There is a James CANNON and two STEPHENSONs (James and William) on this Census page. There are also two STEPHENSON households on the previous page (another James and William), as well as an Ann CANNON and a Thomas ROPER or RAPER on the following page. * * * * * In 1800, there are these AINSWORTH households in the South: James AINSWORTH, of Rutherfordton, Rutherford, NC Jeremiah AINSWORTH, of Orange, Orangeburg District, SC John AINSWORTH, of Orange, Orangeburg District, SC Leavin AINSWORTH, of Chesterfield, SC Thomas AINSWORTH, of Lower Antietam Hundred, Washington, MD William AINSWORTH, of Chesterfield, SC * The appearance of James AINSWORTH in Rutherford County, NC, in 1800 is also interesting. Rutherford, NC, was the place of greatest concentration of ROPER households in North Carolina in the 1790 Census. The 1800 Census returns for Rutherford, NC, are quasi alphabetical, so no proximity is implied by record adjacency. * * * Curiously, James AINSWORTH is again shown in Morganton, Burke County, NC, in the 1810 Census enumeration [Ancetry Image 28 of 58]. A William AINSWORTH also appears on the SAME Census page. James ROPER remains in Morganton, Burke, and is enumerated at Image 4 of 58. A David ROPER is enumerated in Morganton, Burke County, NC, that same year [Image 49 of 58]. * * * James AINSWORTH and William AINSWORTH, Jr., are again enumerated in Burke County, NC, in 1820 [Image 9 of 57]. William AINSWORTH is enumerated in Burke at Image 7. Sarah AINSWORTH heads a household in Burke shown at Image 11. Joseph AINSWORTH appears in Gallatin, Sumner County, TN, that year. David AINSWORTH and Levin AINSWORTH appear in Marion, MS. * * James ROPER is enumerated at Image 2 for Burke in 1820. Thomas MOODY is on the same Census page. John MOODY is on the immediate preceeding page [Image 1]. David ROPER is enumerated in Burke County age Image 48 in 1820. Elijah ROPER is enumerated in Burke at Image 56. * * It shoul probably be here noted that ALL Census returns for Eastern Tennessee for 1820 were LOST. Thus, to establish the presence of ROPER or AINSWORTH families in Eastern Tennessee, you have to look to the Tax Lists, Land records, probate records and militia lists. * * * James AINSWORTH is again enumerated residing in Burke County, NC, in 1830 [Image 141 of 180]. There seems to be a Robert MOODY at the bottom of this Census page. There is a William Green near the top of the immediately following page. * * John ROPER [shown as ROAPER] appears within the Census for Regiment 67, Monroe, TN, in 1830 [Image 35 of 74]. A John MOODY, age 20 to 29, appears in the immediately preceeding record. * * * * * I do NOT have any particular conclusions to suggest EXCEPT that the ROPERs and AINSWORTHs seemed to reside, possibly near to one another, but probably NOT adjacent in Burke County and/or Rutherford County and that there are few enough AINSWORTH households in the American South that it is NOT impractical to track each of these from decade to decade and generation to generation for the half century period prior to William AINSWORTH's marriage to Mary ROPER. Basically, the AINSWORTH genealogy is one that can possibly be worked simultaneously from both ends. I have made NO ATTEMPT to rely upon secondary accounts of these families, simply because I have found that the best strategy is to give the PRIMARY DATA a fresh look unencumbered by any one else's preconceived notions or conclusions. This is NOT to discourage you from making inquiries of such secondary accounts or relying upon these where supported by proper evidence. I would also definitely encourage you to fully investigate the Montgomery, TN, AINSWORTH family, if only because it seems to be the ONLY AINSWORTH family found in Tennessee by 1850. Perhaps it is connected, perhaps not. It can hardly hurt to give this family a quick look. 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: Ainsworth Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1925.1.1.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Kellie: I would expressly encourage you to post additional Queries to the AINSWORTH Message Boards to see whether anyone has any additional information about the William AINSWORTH enumerated in the 1850 Census in Cass County, GA, and Heard County, GA. See: "United States Census, 1850," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MZYJ-2ZS : accessed 11 Aug 2014), William Ainsworth in household of Francis Irwin, Cass county, part of, Cass, Georgia, United States; citing family 660, NARA microfilm publication M432. "United States Census, 1860," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MZMZ-1JC : accessed 11 Aug 2014), William Ainsworth in household of Jas W Turner, , Heard, Georgia, United States; citing "1860 U.S. Federal Census - Population," Fold3.com; p. 82, household ID 534, NARA microfilm publication M653; FHL microfilm 803127. This William AINSWORTH seems to me to be the single best candidate to be James R. AINSWORTH's paternal grandfather. 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, McLemore, Ainsworth Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1925.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Kellie: Yes, this surely seems to be further proof, though in my view the proof is already overwhelming. But this is further independent proof, given the chances of two persons being enlisted from Roane on exactly the same day would seem to be slight. It is certainly some evidence that they came from the same household. If anyone doubts the ascription, perhaps this would dispell those doubts. But I have no doubt whatsoever that the ascription is correct. What remains is simply to collect the other possibly abundant evidence which will ALL prove consistent with the conclusion, since the conclusion is correct. In my view, looking carefully at the McLEMORE family is a very good idea. James AINSWORTH had younger half-brothers and sisters from this family and it seems likely that there was some ongoing contact, particualrly given that he served with his step-brother during the Civil War. Finding the 1870 Census record for the McLEMORE family should be a priority to at least furhter narrow whether Mary (Roper) McLEMORE died before or after 1870. This will also be helpful in identifying other places to look for a grave marker or a probate record. It would be a very good idea to share our recent findings with the McLEMORE family by way of a post to the RootsWeb McLEMORE Message Board. Someone may already know where to find the 1870 Census record or know some details about the disposition of the other children. Similarly, additional expository posts to the Monroe, McMinn, and Roane County Message Boards may yield some further information. I would encourage you to identify the remaining questions you have about this family and then to present some of these questions as queries at one or more Message Boards. I took a bit of a recreational genealogy break this weekend, but it is likely to be a number of weeks before I have much time for further concerted research. 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, Ainsworth Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1925.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: One of the interesting dividends from this ascription is that it also provides additional circumstantial evidence in support of a close family connection between James ROPER (b abt 1786 - NC) and John ROPER (b 08 Jan 1788 - NC, d Oct 1863). My suspicion is that they are probably BROTHERS. It is UNCLEAR to me whether you noted my previous post: "John ROPER (b abt 1756-66), of Pendleton, SC" (8 Jun 2014 1:51AM GMT) http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1923/mb.ashx The evidence supports the idea that this John ROPER had FIVE SONS, one born abt 1775-90, two (2) born b abt 1783-90 and two (2) born abt 1791-1800. See my post: "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 The connection between John ROPER (b 08 Jan 1788 - NC, d Oct 1863) and Monroe County is particular strong due to the very close conformance of the 1830 Census record placing this John ROPER in Monroe County. There is good reason to believe that John ROPER (b 08 Jan 1788 - NC, d Oct 1863) and David ROPER (b 08 Jun 1792 - SC, d 17 Apr 1878 - Lawrence, MO) are probably brothers and my suspcion is that James ROPER (b abt 1786 - NC) was the eldest or second eldest brother. I believe that the Ewel ROPER shown in the Blount County muster rolls for the War of 1812 is probably another brother, though the evidence is purely circumstantial. The presence of James R. AINSWORTH within the household of a grandson of John ROPER (b 08 Jan 1788 - NC, d Oct 1863) in 1870 seems unlikely to be a coincidence. While it is hardly conclusive about the nature of the relationship between John ROPER and James ROPER, it is at least suggestive that such a relationship existed. It also seems to me that it suggests some ongoing contact and correspondence at least during James ROPERs lifetime. We are recently making some really good headway with this branch of the family, but no one from this branch seems to be actually engaged in active current research. You will find that most of the posts are by ME, sometimes collecting and reporting earlier efforts of others. There remain a LOT of details to investigate and understand! Your help is expressly solicited and much appreciated! Two particularly important avenues of investigation include finding a modern male ROPER surnamed patrilienal descendent of David ROPER for DNA testing for comparative purposes with John ROPER's descendant. Also, no one has ever bothered to obtain the War of 1812 Pension file for David ROPER, which might identify his parents, place of birth or siblings. My primary interest is in cleaning up and resolving ROPER relationships during the Colonial and early Federalist period before the Census records began to give us better evidence. Although I am most willing to assist all ROPER researchers with their investigations, time permitting, I am NOT particularly interested in tracking down every contemporary descendent within each branch of the family. I instead merely view bringing the family history forward a generation or two to be a helpful aid in resolving these relationships. 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: kellietho Surnames: Roper, Ainsworth, McLemore Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1925.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: About fifteen minutes after I posted my previous post, I looked at the Report of Adjutant General of the State of Tennessee: of the Military Forces of the State, from 1861-1866, and found something that, I feel, is even more proof of James R. Ainsworth and James A. Roper being the same person. This record shows that an Archy A. McLemore, age 18, enlisted in the same company of the same Tennessee Regiment that James R. Ainsworth enlisted in. What is even more striking is the fact that they enlisted on the exact same day, 09 August 1861, and were mustered in on the exact same day, 20 August 1861. I believe that this Archy A. McLemore, is the Archa A. McLemore, age 17 in the household of Joseph L. McLemore in the 1860 census. 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: kellietho Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1925.1.1.1.1.2.2.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Wow!! You have no idea how much it means to me to hear you say that you feel it is conclusive that James R. Ainsworth and James A. Roper are one and the same person! After years of searching for him and always coming up empty handed, it feels wonderful to be able to finally break down that brick wall. I am so glad I came across your post! I have had the opportunity to read the majority of your posts, and I must say, I am extremely impressed by all of the hard work that you must have put into your research! I cannot thank you enough for your help!! It feels good to be a part of the Roper family! Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Ainsworth Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1925.1.1.1.1.2.2.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Kellie: It is unclear to me whether you have yet had occasion to read the other elaborating and correcting posts within this thread. But by looking a little closer at the data, I have found that the John S. ROPER shown to have married Mary Ann ROBESON was probably a RAPER rather than a ROPER and in any case did NOT die before 1850 leaving a widow named Mary. The Margaret ROPER who married Richard BROWN in Jefferson, TN, is NOT the Margaret ROPER shown in James and Margaret McNally ROPER's hosuehold in 1850 or in the McLEMORE household in 1860. Thus, there is really NO EVIDENCE to support the ascription that Mary ROPER is a daughter-in-law and much reason to suspect that Mary ROPER was James ROPER's DAUGHTER. * However, in my view, your identification of an enlistment of a James R. AINSWORTH, age 19, in Roane County, TN, on 09 August 1861 is CONCLUSIVE. This wouldn't be the case if his surname was SMITH. This might not be as conclusive IF the enlistment had taken place in a large populated place like Philadelphia or New York. In assessing the significance of the enlistment, we must first appreciate that there were only 1,242 AINSWORTHs or AYNSWORTHs NATIONALLY in 1850 out of a total population of upwards of 20 million or about 0.00621%. Of these AINSWORTHs or AYNSWORTHs, only ELEVEN (11) are shown to be residing in Tennessee and ALL of these in 1850 are shown to reside in Montgomery County. This is out of a total Tennessee population of in excess of 763,623 or about 0.0014% of the Tennessee population. Of the 1,242, only twenty five (25) are shown to be born in 1842 and only thirteen (13) of these are MALE nationally. About 563,447 of the total 1850 population of the U.S. was born in 1842 (~2.91%). Thus, AINSWORTH is NOT a particualrly common name and it was MORE uncommon in Tennessee than in New England or America as a whole. Although I do NOT have the published Census counts for Roane County in 1860, a search in Ancestry turns up 11,917 people living in Roane County that year. 5,993 of these are shown to be FEMALE. There are shown to be precisely 157 males residing in in Roane, TN, in 1860, one of which is James A. ROPER. The chance that there would RANDOMLY APPEAR in Roane County amidst this small population ANY AINSWORTH of precisely the SAME AGE as James ROPER is exceptionally small. The probability that this AINSWORTH would also have the given name "James" is even smaller. That he would have a middle initial "R" (suggesting that he might have been named for James ROPER) is even smaller. (Out of a total Tennessee population of about 839,239, 804 are shown to have given names "James R.", about 1 in a thousand.) Assuming independence of these variables, the probability of the random appearance of a James R. AINSWORTH, born in 1842, in Tennessee in 1860 would be about 0.00000004% or less than ONE in a billion, given the incidence of the AINSWORTH surname, given name "James R" and likelihood of being born in 1842. This is about as good as a DNA match! My original thesis when I couldn't find him after 1860 was that James ROPER didn't survive the War, but I didn't even bother to look for him amongst Civil War enlistments. The enlistment of a James R. AINSWORTH in the small county of Roane in 1861 can certainly be treated as conclusive that James R. AINSWORTH is one and the same as James A. ROPER. Welcome to the ROPER family! Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: kellietho Surnames: Ainsworth, Roper Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1925.1.1.1.1.2.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Wow! I had the very same thought of Mary Roper possibly being the widow of William Ainsworth when I originally saw your first post in this thread. For this reason, I went on to follow this Mary to see where she went after the 1850 Census. When I saw her, James Roper, and the two Margaret's living with Joseph McLemore in Roane County, Tennessee in 1860, it made my belief that she may have indeed been Mary (Roper) Ainsworth and that James was indeed James Ainsworth even stronger. I then tried to follow this James Roper after 1860, but to no avail. Here is something that was very interesting to me. This James Roper seems to have vanished in the very same county that my James R. Ainsworth seems to appear out of thin air in 1861. James R. Ainsworth enlisted with Company I, 1st Regiment East Tennessee Infantry on 09 August 1861. He is listed as age 19. This information comes from his Civil War Papers which I found on fold3.com. His age coincides with that of James Roper. If James Roper and James Ainsworth are one and the same person, it seems that he was born between 10 July 1842 (the 1860 Census was enumerated on 10 July) and 09 August 1842. Following the war, James R. Ainsworth appears on the 1870 Census for Hartville, Wright County, Missouri as Jas. R. Ainsworth and is 28-years-old. He is living with J H Roper (age 30), Laura E. Roper (age 20), John B. Roper (age 7 months), and Caroline Green (age 27). Caroline Green and Laura E. Roper are sisters. They are the daughters of Daniel Potter Green and Malinda Montgomery. On 18 October 1870, James Ainsworth marries Caroline Green in Texas County, Missouri. This was found in the Missouri Marriage Records, 1805-2002. James is listed as J R Ainsworth. James and Caroline are then found in the 1875 Kansas State Census living in Sheridan, Crawford County, Kansas. James is listed as J R Ainsworth. In this Census, you will find that James and Caroline had two sons, William (listed as W H and 4-years-old), and John R. (listed as J R and 8 months). Due to William's age in this census, it is my belief that James and Caroline conceived him out of wedlock. Here is a link in which I explain my theory: http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/8473097/person/-944235693/mediax/1?pgnum=1&pg=0&pgpl=pid|pgNum It appears as though James must have died (or is living elsewhere) between 1875 and 1876 because Caroline and the boys, William and John, are found in the 1876 Missouri State Census in Texas County, Missouri. James is not enumerated with them. Fast forward to the 1880 Census for Wood, Wright County, Missouri, and you will find Caroline and the boys living with her brother, Henry A. Green. Caroline is listed as a widow. According to the birth certificate of John R. Ainsworth's (James' and Caroline's youngest son) son, Gilbert, John R. Ainsworth was born in Mountain Grove, Missouri. According to findagrave.com, there seem to be a few Roper's that are buried in this very town, including John H. Roper who was born 1788 and who you found to be living in Tennessee at one point, and his wife, Nancy. This seems to strengthen the idea that these Ainsworth and Roper families are related. What do you think? I am truly grateful for your help! This James R. Ainsworth had been my brick wall for about 7 years now. If he does turn out to be the James Roper listed in the 1850 Census with James and Margaret Roper and in the 1860 Census with the McLemore family, that could explain why I have not been able to find any record of him until he turns up in Civil War Records! 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>