This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Evans, Brown Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1875.1.1.1.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: The 1850 Census shows a William ROPER, age 76 (b abt 1776 - NC), together with Elizabeth ROPER, age 56 (b abt 1794), enumerated within Smith County, TN, in 1850. This William ROPER is consistent in age with either the William ROPER (b bef 1776) enumerated in Maury County, TN, in 1820, or the William ROPER (b bef 1776) enumerated in Williamson County, TN, the same year. See: "United States Census, 1850," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11097-126449-57?cc=1401638 : accessed 10 Apr 2014), Tennessee > Smith > Smith county > image 90 of 345; citing NARA microfilm publication M432. * Clearly, this William ROPER is TOO YOUNG to have been the William ROPER who was grantee of a deed in Caswell County, NC, in 1779, or the William ROPER who married Keziah YATES in 1781. This William ROPER is also TOO YOUNG to be a father of David Y. ROPER (b 1778, d 01 Sep 1843 - Giles, TN). The ages are more consistent with the possibility that this William ROPER (b abt 1776 - NC) was a brother or cousin of David Y. ROPER (b 1778, d 01 Sep 1843 - Giles, TN). It seems singularly UNLIKELY that William ROPER (b bef 1759) was the father of William ROPER (b abt 1776 - NC), UNLESS this William ROPER was much older than generally believed and married PRIOR to his 1781 marriage to Keziah YATES. This William ROPER (b abt 1776 - NC) is of sufficient age to be the father of John Y. ROPER, of Smith and Sumner Counties, but William ROPER's wife Elizabeth ROPER (b abt 1794) is TOO YOUNG to be the mother of John Y. ROPER (b abt 1794 - NC). Elizabeth is actually about the SAME AGE as John Y. ROPER and at best is probably a younger stepmother. * William ROPER (b abt 1776 - NC), of Smith County, TN, seems LIKELY to be the William ROPER who is known to have married Elizabeth BROWN/EVANS on 26 Jun 1817 in Knox County, Tennessee. See: "United States Census, 1850," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11097-126449-57?cc=1401638 : accessed 10 Apr 2014), Tennessee > Smith > Smith county > image 90 of 345; citing NARA microfilm publication M432. "Tennessee, County Marriages, 1790-1950," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XZ4W-7Y3 : accessed 10 Apr 2014), William Roper and Elizabeth Evans, 26 Jun 1817; citing Knox, Tennessee, United States, ; FHL microfilm 1205066. * It is UNCLEAR TO ME whether BROWN or EVANS is Elizabeth's maiden name and whose widow she was. * Since cross-marriages of multiple brothers and sisters to siblings of another family was more common in those days, the 30 Sep 1807 marriage of William BROWN and Rebecca EVANS in Knox County, TN, a decade earlier may possibly inform our inquiry. See: "Tennessee, County Marriages, 1790-1950," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XZ43-KJM : accessed 10 Apr 2014), William Brown and Rebecca Evans, 30 Sep 1807; citing Knox, Tennessee, United States, 8; FHL microfilm 1020951. "Tennessee, County Marriages, 1790-1950," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1-9816-6910-33?cc=1619127 : accessed 10 Apr 2014), 004538925 > image 31 of 1662. * * * Overall, it seems to me that the William ROPER (b abt 1776 - NC) KNOWN to have lived in Tennessee is a BETTER candidate to be either the William ROPER found in Maury or Williamson County in 1820 than the William ROPER (b bef 1759). Of course, this does NOT exclude the possibility that the OTHER William ROPER shown in the Census residing in Tennessee in 1820 might instead be the William ROPER who married Keziah YATES. But there seems to be NO EXTANT EVIDENCE that this is the case and whenever one actually studies the records, the prospect that William ROPER survived and moved to Tennessee seems more and more remote. * * What seems to be often missing from your analysis is a more thorough assessment of the relative merits of an ascription by assessing alternative constructions using the very same data. That is, if you are going to seize upon a particular record, such as a Census enumeration for a particular year, rather than just taking that record and asserting that it supports your hypothesis, it is important for look at the other Census records for persons of the SAME NAME or in the same place in several Census enumerations both BEFORE and AFTER. Since you seem focused on defending and supporting the specious prior ascriptions relating to William ROPER and Keziah YATES, you seem not to be willing to entertain and fully weigh alternative possible ascriptions using the same data. IF we were to accept the hypothesis that William ROPER (b bef 1759) EVER migrated to Tennessee, then one needs some theory as to precisely HOW and WHEN William ROPER arrived there and then WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM afterwards. * * * ANOTHER REVIEW OF THE 1820 TENNESSEE CENSUS DATA IN RESPECT OF OTHER PROVEN INFORMATION We have Census records in Maury, TN, in 1820 for three ROPER households: William ROPER: 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Maury, TN 1820] David Y ROPER: 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 -- 1 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 -- 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Maury, TN 1820] Tennessee ROPER: 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Maury, TN 1820] We KNOW that William ROPER (b bef 1776), of Maury, was age 45 or more and thus born before 1776. We KNOW from this and subsequent Census data that David Y. ROPER (b 1778, d 01 Sep 1843 - Giles, TN) is much older that Tennessee ROPER (b 02 Jul 1798 - NC). There is also a Thomas ROPER, enumerated within Hickman County, which is the adjacent County to the immediate Northwest of Maury, TN: Thomas ROPER: 3 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 -- 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 -- 0 - 3 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Hickman 1820] See: "ROPERs Households in the 1820 Census for Tennessee" (1 Mar 2014 4:29AM) http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.roper/1856.1/mb.ashx In a prior post, I also showed that the Census data for Thomas ROPER (b abt 1780 - NC), of Clinton, IL, was reasonably consistent with the possibility that Thomas ROPER had migrated through Pulaski, KY, to Hickman, TN, and then on to Clinton, IL. Thus, in 1820 there is a cluster of ROPERs with a very tight age grouping living in close proximity in Maury and Hickman, TN: William ROPER (b abt 1776 - NC) [Possibly Maury or Williamson, TN, in 1820] David Y. ROPER (b 1778, d 01 Sep 1843 - Giles, TN) [Maury, TN 1820] Thomas ROPER (b abt 1780 - NC) [Hickman, TN 1820] Then, there seems to be another generation, with another possibly related John Y. ROPER residing in Smith County: John Y. ROPER (b abt 1794 - NC) [Smith, TN 1820] Tennessee ROPER (b 02 Jul 1798 - NC) [Maury, TN 1820] * The Charles ROPER found in Stewart, TN, in 1820 is almost certainly from the Northampton, NC, ROPER family and NOT as closely related: Charles ROPER: 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 -- 2 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 -- 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Stewart, TN 1820] * These age ranges seem to me to be consistent with the bare possibility that John Y. ROPER (b abt 1794 - NC) might be the son of William ROPER (b abt 1776 - NC). Similarly, proximity and age range seem MORE consistent with the bare possibility that Tennessee ROPER (b 02 Jul 1798 - NC) might be a son of David Y. ROPER (b 1778, d 01 Sep 1843 - Giles, TN). These are NOT ascriptions. Rather, I simply point out that the data seem to me far more consistent with such a construction than the speculative ascription you propose that William ROPER and Keziah YATES were the parents of ANY of these ROPERs. It seems to me that we can REJECT any ascription that William ROPER (b abt 1776 - NC), David Y. ROPER (b 1778, d 01 Sep 1843 - Giles, TN) and Thomas ROPER (b abt 1780 - NC) were children born to Keziah YATES OUT OF WEDLOCK. Thus, we now reduce the problem to the simpler question as to whether there is ANY basis to believe that Keziah posthumously conceived John Y. ROPER (b abt 1794 - NC) and Tennessee ROPER (b 02 Jul 1798 - NC). I find the theory of multiple out of wedlock conceptions and posthumous conceptions to not be merely fanciful, but actually offensive! I think this kind of nonsense is a family embarrassment. I think that it is better to follow where the data leads us rather than looking for records and then rationalizing why the common sense reading of the data should be discarded in favor of the fantastic. * In closing, though, I would also point out that William ROPER (b bef 1776), of Williamson, TN, seems to be a somewhat better candidate to be William ROPER (b abt 1776 - NC), of Smith County, TN, than William ROPER (b bef 1776), of Maury, TN. This is because Elizabeth ROPER (b abt 1794) would have been about age 26 in 1820 and better fits the 1820 Census profile of the William ROPER found in Williamson, which shows a female age 26 to 44 (b abt 1776-94): William ROPER: 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Maury, TN 1820] William ROPER: 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 -- 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Williamson, TN 1820] Of course, it is also possible that William ROPER (b abt 1776 - NC), of Smith County, TN, hadn't yet arrived in Tennessee in 1820 OR that he resided in one of the East Tennessee Counties for which ALL 1820 Census data was LOST. It seems to me that we need to carefully review and assess EVERY William ROPER Census record from 1790 to 1850 to track the movements of various William ROPERs from decennial Census to Census. Rather than looking at single Census records in isolation, each record should be assessed in respect of the prior and subsequent Census enumerations. This is time consuming, but I have found that it gives very good results. We also need to be looking at extant annual real estate and personal property tax records which show more precisely when a person first appears in a place and when a person disappears from the records for a jurisdiction. There also needs to be a recognition that MOST deed records are NOT abstracted in published abstracts and that the means of ascertaining whether a person is shown in the deed records is ordinarily by scrutiny of the Grantor-Grantee Index for the land records, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE IN MOST COUNTIES by ROPER researchers because everyone continues to simply make speculative, whimsical and/or fraudulent ascriptions rather than looking at the primary 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>