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/1851.1.1.2.1.1.2.1.3/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: I think that your analysis in this post is interesting and compelling. The possible significance of these indicated Rutherford County, NC, deeds had escaped my notice: "The following Rutherford County deeds exist: Grantee Grantors Book/ Pag Date Goodman, Jacob Charles Roper 15 17:454 1802 Roper, Charles State of NC (grant) 22 23:475 1806 William Lucas David Roper 22 23:565 1806" Given the central importance of resolving relationships of ROPERs passing through Rutherford County, I am somewhat dismayed that no one ever seems to have bothered to look up and post a transcription of these records! ANY of these records might also include the identity of a wife releasing her dower rights. ALL we have is the Index entries of deeds no one seems to have bother to look at, much less abstract. In my view EACH of these three records is important, but for different reasons. As you point out, there seem to be ZERO ROPERs enumerated within Rutherford in the 1800 Census. This coincides with a period of significant ROPER migration, both through the Cumberland Gap into Kentucky and Tennessee, but especially to Edgefield and Pendleton, SC. Recall that a Charles ROPER died in Edgefield, SC, in 1801. See: "Edgefield Administration of Charles ROPER (1801)" http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1859.5/mb.ashx I suspect that the widow of this Charles ROPER is the Sarah ROPER who remarried Drury ADAMS. The 1802 Rutherford deed, seemingly from Charles ROPER to Jacob GOODMAN might further inform us about Charles ROPER (b 19 Apr 1758), son of Charles ROPER and Ann GOODWYN, another Charles ROPER, perhaps a grandson of Charles ROPER and Ann GOODWYN, who died in Edgefield, or another newly appearing Charles ROPER. In my view that 1802 deed could be especially important! * The 1806 deed is also curious, since by then no ROPERs seem to be actually resident in Rutherford. One wonders at the basis for a grant from the State of North Carolina. * The sale of land by David ROPER to William LUCAS seems to closely follow the grant from North Carolina. * * * While I would agree with you that the latter index entry is at least consistent with a sale of land by David ROPER and a repurchase in Burke, NC, it is also equally consistent with a sale in Rutherford and a migration to Pulaski, KY. * * * One of the things I think you are failing to appreciate is that what these records really reflect is an inherently LAZY approach to genealogy. When one is actually conducting a SERIOUS inquiry, one checks ALL of the indices in a particular place, particularly as to Grantor - Grantee land records. These are especially EASY records to find because recorded deeds have ALWAYS been contemporaneously indexed. For this reason, few BOTHER to simply prepare and post lists of the Grantor-Grantee Indices for a county because any serious genealogist would ALWAYS pull ALL of the deeds to or from a particular surname in conducting an investigation. This REQUIRES going to the MICROFILM and pulling up first the Indices, then the underlying deed records. When you see a sprinkling of entries, such as the ones Dave has posted, this is reflective NOT of any serious genealogical inquiry as to the Rutherford ROPER families, but rather the opportunistic discovery of some posted transcription of the Index entries from a particular book undertaken by some conscientious genealogist from another family. There are probably MANY other unexamined Rutherford deeds which bear upon ROPER relationships. The LAZY genealogist doesn't due the tedious work of examining the underlying records, but instead waits for SOMEONE ELSE to publish an ABSTRACT of the data. The LAZY genealogist then reads the abstract and seeks to reach conclusions without ever examining the underlying primary records, very often thereby missing the significant clues OMITTED by the abstracter. The Abstract is merely a FINDING AID for the primary record! * * * This might beg the question as to why I haven't done this tedious work. The answer is twofold. First, this isn't actually MY branch of the ROPER family. I have again and again sought to assist other ROPER researchers by pointing them in the right direction. But I have persistently found that only a handful ever follow up on my suggestions when they involve doing REAL research as to primary records. There is a point at which I draw the line and REFUSE to expend further time doing primary research for others who decline to do the research themselves. I HAVE done this primary research as it pertains to branches of my own family. Secondly, in many cases I HAVE done the research for other branches, too. I have about 3,000 pages of untranscribed notes from visits to various libraries. When visiting a library or Archive, I always endeavor to copy EVERY ROPER record I come across in case it turns out to be useful to other researchers. However, I place my transcription and sharing focus on the topic under immediate investigation. Every now and then, I try to find the time to transcribe and post additional information that I found in previous primary research forays. I have a pretty good memory and have been able to form some very good general understanding of the migrations and relationships. But this is far too much information keep in one's head as to various details, etc. Sometimes, in copying, particularly of material not central to my investigation, I am going very quickly and take copies for future transcription, intending to come back and analyze the information later. The Will information for John PETERSON I recently posted bearing on the relationship of James ROPER to Mary PATERSON is exemplary. I obtained that information in a visit to the North Carolina State Library and Archives during a three week research visit in August and September 2010. However, I was subsequently sidetracked from devoting much time to organization, review and transcription of the collected information. I have probably only fully analyzed and posted about 5% of what I gathered on that trip. The same is true as to information I collected during a week at the Maryland Archives and two weeks at the Virginia State Library that same year. Finally, I must tell you that I DO become quite BORED when I hear again and again from various ROPERs who want help proving a fraudulent ROPER lineage they found online, whether at Ancestry, within Dave's notoriously misleading and unreliable database or elsewhere. When I advise people that the posted information is erroneous at best, but usually blatantly fraudulent, and suggest avenues to CORRECT and verify the information, they seem to quickly LOSE INTEREST when genealogy begins to resemble REAL WORK. This isn't rocket science. If one wants to find out about land ownership, one goes to the grantor-grantee indices for a place and LOOKS UP the records, then pulling the original deeds. It have been done this way for at least five centuries, well before the advent of the Internet, microfilm or modern finding and indexing aids. If someone merely posts a handful of abstracts from a published source, this reflects a very casual approach to genealogy. You KNOW that someone has made a thorough study of the records in a place when they identify ALL of the indexed records and then post transcriptions of the underlying deeds. This is very tedious and time consuming. But that is how family history is really advanced. 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>