This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Owen Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1898.3.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: The place of birth of George ROPER (b abt 1788, d 08 Sep 1866 - IL) has been generally believed to be NORTH CAROLINA. The 1850 and 1860 Census enumerations each show this George ROPER as being born in North Carolina. In 1850, George ROPER, age 61, is enumerated residing within the household of his son James M. ROPER, age 18. George is shown in the record to be born in North Carolina, but the fact that James M. ROPER is shown to be the head of the household may reflect that James ROPER was the person who answered the questions for the enumerator. Seth ROPER, James ROPER's half-brother is shown to be residing in the adjacent household. In 1860, George ROPER, age 72, is shown to be residing in a household consisting of himself, Rachal [sic] ROPER, age 65, and Louis ROPER, age 12. Again George ROPER is shown to be born in North Carolina. David ROPER, age 35, is shown to reside in the adjacent household. * However, within the 1880 Census enumeration of Seth ROPER, shown to be age 70 and born in North Carolina, and widely believed to be George ROPER's eldest son, Seth shows his father's birthplace as SOUTH CAROLINA. See: "United States Census, 1880," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MXK6-RVZ : accessed 20 Apr 2014), Seth Roper, Douglas, Saline, Illinois, United States; citing sheet 50A, NARA microfilm publication T9. * Generally, I give greater weight to the representations made to the Census enumerator while a person is LIVING than to the data furnished after a person is already dead. But the eldest son from the first marriage, who migrated with his father from North Carolina, might very well have a different fund of knowledge about the father's past than his younger siblings born in Illinois. I am NOT suggesting that this one anomalous contrary mention ought to cause us to change the ascription. But taken together with a possible marriage record in Georgia, it seems to me that we should at least revisit the primary data and carefully assess whether there is any reason to believe that the South Carolina birthplace might be correct. Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board. <br>