This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Abernathy, Roeper, Reeper Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1919.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: I apologize if you found my post to be redundant. But I am surprised that you continue to cling to the idea that David Y. ROPER might be related to William ROPER and Kesiah YATES. You stated: "In reference to the Abernathy family believing that David Y. Roper and Dionysia Abernathy getting married on October 27, 1809, Robertson, NC, I have never been able to find such a marriage record and would consider that information speculative until someone comes up with some proof." I absolutely agree with you that we ought NOT simply accept the assertion that the marriage took place in Robertson (or Robeson), NC, or that it took place on 27 Oct 1809 absent some proof by the proponent of this asserted place and date. But both indicated the date and place should inform our inquiry. If NOT a North Carolina marriage, where did David ROPER and Dionysia ABERNATHY meet and marry. Don't you think that an identification of David ABERNATHY's place of residence in 1790, 1800 and 1810 is relevant to this question? * It seems to me to be a bad idea to simply DISMISS the possibility of a connection between the ROPERs and ABERNATHYs in North Carolina prior to arrival in Tennessee. When building a case on circumstantial evidence, it is usually important not simply to show the viability of the proposition advanced, but also to show that other alternative constructions are either NOT viable or, at least, LESS VIABLE. * There is another reason to actually PURSUE the real clues rather than simply DISMISSING them. Sometimes, such clues lead you to OTHER evidence that helps to inform and focus your quest. * Such is the case with even the most cursory of inquiries as to the ABERNATHY family. Within my notes, I show the presence of an interesting anomalous 1790 Census record in Lincoln, North Carolina, which in and of itself would hardly be conclusive or even suggestive, but in conjunction with the ADJACENT record of "B. ABERNATHY" on the SAME Census page as David ABERNATHY seems to me to suggest the advisability of further investigation of the Lincoln, North Carolina, records. This is the presence of Thomas REEPER in the record immediately preceding that of B. ABERNATHY: Mary WOODS: 0 - 0 - 3 -- 0 Thomas REEPER: 1 - 1 - 3 -- 0 B. ABERNATHY: 1 - 2 - 3 -- 1 W. ROBISON: 0 - 1 - 2 -- 0 Jacob FORNEY: 1 - 0 - 1 -- 5 [Image 7 of 11 at Ancestry.com] These are shown to reside in the Ninth Company in Lincoln. The record might say ROEPER rather than REEPER. The ABERNATHY and FORNEY family was intermarried. I find the presence of a Thomas REEPER or ROEPER adjacent to a B. ABERNATHY to be highly coincidental in respect of the marriage or David Y. ROPER to Dionysia ABERNATHY. The coinciding appearance of REEPER and ABERNATHY in Lincoln seems to me to unlikely to be explained by chance alone. This Census page also includes these additional ABERNATHY households: Turner ABERNATHY Jos. (or possibly Jas.) ABERNATHY David ABERNATHY Jno. ABERNATHY Sarah ABERNATHY Jas. ABERNATHY David ABERNATHY Robt. ABERNATHY There is also another Jno ABERNATHY on the immediately preceding Census page [Image 6] and a Charles ABERNATHY and a William ABERNATHY on the succeeding page within the Ninth Company [Image 8] and at least two more ABERNATHYs in the Tenth Company, also shown on this page. * * * One possibility is that there is a REEPER family that briefly appeared in Lincoln, North Carolina, but which quickly became extinct. Another possibility is that Thomas REEPER or ROEPER's presence in Lincoln, North Carolina should inform our inquiry into the relationship between the ROPER and ABERNATHY families. Since dishonest researchers have ALTERED David Y. ROPER's date or birth and death to support the FALSE ASCRIPTION of this David as a son of William ROPER, no one ever bothered to investigate the true origins of this ROPER family. In my view, clinging to fraudulent ascriptions rather than sweeping away the detritus and looking and TRUE FACTS is what continues to hold ROPER genealogy back. I find the assertion that David Y. ROPER was posthumously born to Kesiah Yates ROPER to be not only exceptionally doubtful, but actually offensive. I believe that a careful and thorough examination of the records in Lincoln County is what is indicated. One possibility is that Thomas REEPER is actually Thomas ROPER. If this is the case, then Thomas ROPER is one possible clue as to the origins of David Y. ROPER. 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>