This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Lea, Neel, Neal, Neil, O'Neal, O'Neil Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1893.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: In the prior post establishing this thread, I showed that there are two ROPER grandchildren of William LEA born to an unidentified ROPER and and an unnamed daughter of Willam LEA (which daughter seems to have been born befoe 1769 and died before 09 Jan 1794. I further identified three Caswell ROPERs as the best candidates IF the unnamed daughter married a Caswell County ROPER: William ROPER (b bef 1759) [the William ROPER shown to have married Keziah YATES] James ROPER (b abt 1756-60?, d 18 Nov 1835 - Simpson, KY) [the Revolutionary War Veteran] John ROPER (b. bef. 1756, d. aft. 1820 - Cumberland, KY) * This post focuses on perhaps he single best of these three candidates: James ROPER (b abt 1756-60?, d 18 Nov 1835 - Simpson, KY) As a preliminay matter, I want to expressly call to researcher's attention that while the Revolutionary Pension Application of James ROPER, of Simpson, Kentucky, shows this James ROPER to have been born in June 1745, I previously showed that this birth informaion is inconsistent with the data shown in the 1800 and 1830 Census records. See my thread: "James ROPER (b Jun 1745 - Caswell, NC, d 18 Nov 1835 - Simpson, KY)" (27 Nov 2012 3:23PM) http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.roper/1721/mb.ashx See especially the 1800 Census Record, the 1830 Census record and the additional posts discussing James ROPER's age: "James ROPER's 1800 Census Record" (27 Nov 2012 5:16PM) http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.roper/1721.1/mb.ashx "James ROPER's 1830 Census Record" (27 Nov 2012 6:43PM) http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.roper/1721.3/mb.ashx "When Was James ROPER (b abt 1756-60, d 18 Nov 1835 - Simpson, KY) Really Born??" (27 Nov 2012 9:51PM) http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.roper/1721.4/mb.ashx I reached the conclusion that the information in te Census records was in this case more reliable than the very specific month and of James ROPER's birth given in James ROPER's Court testimony and have accordingly ascribed a birth year range of about 1756-60. * * * JAMES ROPER's CENSUS DATA James ROPER or TOPER: 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 -- 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 -- 0 - 0 (no slaves) [Chester, SC 1800] James ROPER: 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- NO SLAVES [Simpson, KY 1820] James ROPER: 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 6 Total, No Slaves [Simpson, KY 1830] Implicit in this Census data are these implied birth ranges for James ROPER: 1800: b abt 1756-74 (age 26 to 44) 1820: b bef 1766 (age 45 and over) 1830: b abt 1751-60 (age 70 to 79) * * * JAMES ROPER's MARRIAGE DATE Within his Pension Application, it is twice asserted that James ROPER married May NEAL in 1788. Significantly, it is also asserted that this was James ROPER's SECOND marriage. But the extant marriage records for Caswell County reflect a marriage of James ROPER to Mary O'NEIL on 27 Mar 1792. Since that is the date on the marriage bond, the marriage ay have even been solemnized a few days later. We are given this very specific information concerning Mary ROPER's date of birth: "Mary Neel who was born 22 Apr 1766 in Fauquier Co., VA." We have additional specific information concerning Mary NEAL/NEEL/O'NEAL from the affdavits of James and Elizabeth PONDS: "Affidavits of James Pond and wife Elizabeth who were neighbors of James & Mary Roper in Caswell County and now lived in Sumner Co., TN: James & Elizabeth married and had two children, and Mary Neal was in the habit of visiting this affiants house on Moon's Creek in Caswell Co., NC and that James Roper asked this affiants hand to court the said Mary who was a poor orphan girl and had no settle home of her own, which was granted, and said James Roper done as he requested, and in a short time afterward they were married at the house of John Adams, a cousin to the said Mary Neal." * Other researchers have ocassionaly seized upon another primary record, the Orange County Will of John GEER or GREER dated 18 Aug 1769 in support of an assertion that this James ROPER was previously married to an unnamed daughter of John GREER's. This GREER Will apparently makes a specific token bequest of two shillings to son-in-law James ROPER. This would seem to reflect either that John GREER thought he had already made a fair disposition of property to his daughter at her marriage OR, perhaps, that the daughter had since died possibly without children and that a signfiicant bequest to James ROPER was unnecessary or inappropriate. We need not reach any conclusions about the specifics of the relaionship of James ROPER to this John GREER and the unnamed daughter, because it is readily evident that this CANNOT BE the SAME James ROPER identified in teh Revolutionary War Pension Application. THE DATES SIMPLY DO NOT WORK OUT! I have discussed above reasons why the June 1745 date of birth for James ROPER seems unreliable and have proposed that the correct date range seems more likey to be 1756-60. If I am CORRECT, then the Revolutionary War Veteran James ROPER would have been only age NINE to THIRTEEN at the date of John GREER's Will. (If the June 1745 date were correct, admittedly, this James ROPER would have been about age 24 when John GREER died.) Moreover, if we accept this ascription of a prior marriage to an unnamed GREER daughter, we are then left to accept that this James ROPER remained unmarried for an interval of twenty three years before marrying Mary O'NEAL in 1792. * * * JAMES ROPER's UNEXPLAINED CHILDREN Recognizing that identification and ascription of the 1800 Census record for James ROPER is far from certain, I still believe that this Census record is probably that of James ROPER for the reasons set forth withn my post "James ROPER's 1800 Census Record" (27 Nov 2012 5:16PM). I had separately shown within my post "The Travels of James ROPER (d 18 Nov 1835 - Simpson, KY)" that Chester County, SC, was the place we should EXPECT to find James ROPER. In fact, I found the indicated Census record there after first ascertaining that this would be the correct place to look. There may very well be other extant primary evidence of James ROPER's presence in Chester, SC. As far as I can tell, NO ONE HAS BOTHERED TO LOOK at the other extant Chester records. Accpting, arguendo, that the Chester record I identified IS that of James ROPER, take another look at what it seems to tell us: James ROPER: 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 -- 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 -- 0 - 0 (no slaves) [Chester, SC 1800] This James ROPER's households shown to have a female age 26 to 44 (b abt 1756-7). There are shown to be two male children under the age of 10 (b abt 1791-1800) and two female children under the age of ten. This seems quite consistent with the older female being Mary O'NEAL (b 22 Apr 1766 - Fauquier, VA) and this couple having FOUR children in the eight year interval between the KNOWN actual date of the ROPER - O'NEAL marriage (27 Mar 1792) and the 1800 Census enumeration. Given the lateness in the month of March of the ROPER O'NEAL marriage it is both statistically and bologically UNLIKELY that ANY child would have been born to this couple before January 1793 at the earliest. In my view, this couple having FOUR children during the interval 1793 to 1800 is CONSISTENT with the known marriage date. IT MAKES SENSE! The PRECISE conformance of Mary O'Neal ROPER's KNOWN date of birth and the age of the younger children seem to correspond TOO EXACTLY with what we know of James ROPER's wife and date of marriage for this to ba chance outcome! * But there are also precisely two other children shown in is Census record, one male and the other female. Each is shown to be age 10 to 15 (b abt 1785-90). Thus, EACH of these children CANNOT have been born to this couple UNLESS the were born out of wedlock. These children then seem to have been from a prior marriage of either James ROPER or Mary NEAL. In my view, the description of Mary NEAL in the PONDS affidavit is INCONSISTENT with the idea that Mary NEAL was a WIDOW. She described instead as a poor "orphan." I suspect that if the PONDS knew Mary NEAL as a young widow, that her widowhood and young children would have been the salient charactristic they might have pointed to their account of the marriage. Instead, Mary is described as a poor orphan and James is expressly shown to have married Mary O'NEAL as a SECOND WIFE. In my view, this primary evidence from the James ROPER Pension Application supports a very STRONG INFERENCE that the two children born between 1785 and 1790 are James ROPER's childen from a prior marrage. * There are also some other inferences that might be made in consideration that James ROPER had two children under age seven at the date of his marriage to Mary O'NEAL. First, children of this age are in need of a mother. And the need for a mother is even greater when the children are youngest. In my view, this supports a reasonably strong inference that James ROPER probably remarried very quickly after his first wife's death. I going to go out on a limb here to assert that James ROPER probably remarried within three years of his first wife's death and more likely remarried within a year. The speed of remarriage probably relates to the age of the children. The younger the children, the faster the remarriage. Second, the primary cause of death of young women in those days was in pregnancy or childbirth. It seems reasonably likely that James ROPER's first wife probably died in pregnancy or childbirth, bearing the couple's third child (who did not survive), OR died bearing the second child who DID survive. My suspicion then is that James ROPER's first wife died either coincident with the birth of the second child OR died up to about three to four years later in a subsequent pregnancy, as pregnancies occured with great regularity in those days. Third, we are given the rather intresting anomolous information in James ROPER's Pension Application that he married in 1788. At the date he was deposed in Court in 1733, James ROPER was apparently already both blind and senile. While there is some possibility that the year to which he testified was taken down and transcribed incorrectly, or that he was competely mistaken about his year of marriage, yet another possiblity emerges from review of the data. Perhaps James ROPER WAS married in 1788! But this date may have reflected the marriage date of the FIRST WIFE. For whatever reason, James ROPER seemed to remember that 1788 date, which is QUITE plausible in respect of the Census data. If James ROPER first married in early 1788 and then had two chldren in quick succession, perhaps in 1788 and 1789, these would both be age 10 to 15 (b abt 1790) in 1800. James ROPER's wife migt have then died in a third pregnancy in 1790 or 1791, with James ROPER remarrying in March 1792. Such a construction would also seem to harmonize what we know from the William LEA Will. William LEA died in 1794 and his unnamed daugther was already dead. By this date, if James ROPER was his son-in-law, James had REMARRIED and possibly already fathered a third child by Mary O'NEAL. James ROPER's remarriage and enlarged family would have justified a specific bequest to his own grandchildren. By giving the grandhildren the remainder interest in a slave (to which he beqeathed a life interest to his wife), William LEA assured that there would be some wealth to endow his grandchildren, but the bequest wouldn't be dissipated on James ROPER's other younger children. * * * While I will stop short of making an ascription that James ROPER is unnamed son-in-law of William LEA and the father of William ROPER and Sarah ROPER, it seems to me that the extant data seems to be consistent with that possibility. Without making such an ascripton, it seems to me that we should then focus on whether there exists other information which might support or disprove the hypothesis that James ROPER first married a LEA. 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>