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/1787.5/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: In reviewing this post from last year, it appears to me that you made a mistake in the calculation of James ROPER's implicit year of birth, at least in respect of this portion of your post: "1840 McMinn Co.: George Roper 21001-10001 90 Jas. Roper 00000001-0001001 100 James Roper is age 50-60. This would mean his birth date was 1810,if we compare this census record with the age range in the 1830 census. The oldest female is shown as age 40-50. There is a younger female age 15-20." If I am correct in understanding that the record tersely summarized above reflected a James ROPER age 50 to 59, this would seem to suggest that this James ROPER was born about 1781-90. You had previously observed: "The 1830 US census of Tennessee: McMinn Co.: James Roper 0 1 0 0 0 1 - 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 Page 152; A James Roper is shown to be age 30-40, consistent with a birth date between 1800 and 1810. James is again found in the 1840 McMinn, TN census, along with a younger George Roper 10 pages away. James is living next to Francis Reid and Jno McMahan." If the Census transcription is correct, then this seems to be consistent with a James ROPER (b abt 1791-1800). * You then go on to state: "James Roper does not appear in the 1850 McMinn County, TN census. Francis Reid and Jno McMahan are still residing next to each other, but there is no James Roper. I cannot find a similar James Roper in any 1850 census. There is a James Roper found in the 1860 Township 16 N Range 7 E, Douglas, ILL census. He is age 60, born in 1800, Kentucky. This would not match the 1810 birthdate of the James Roper in McMinn, TN." While I would tend to AGREE that the James ROPER in McMinn is inconsistent with both the 1830 and 1840 Census records AS SHOWN, I would encourage you to re-verify the posted Census data and to clarify the boundary between the male and female counts, especially in the 1830 records which is summarized in a way inconsistent with the presentation in the underlying Census enumeration. Hopefully, you posted figures you verified through Ancestry, since the data at Dave's site is often unreliable. If the posted figures are correct, would you agree that the 1830 and 1840 is actually consistent within a margin of reporting error, supporting a possible ascription that this James ROPER is: James ROPER (b abt 1791-1800) [1830] James ROPER (b abt 1781-90) [1840] Possibly to be interpreted that James ROPER was born abt 1790-1? 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>