This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Patillo, Reeves, Archibald Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1869/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Recently, within several posts in a thread by researcher Frank BATCHELOR, Frank and I have been debating the correct interpretation of the 1790 ROPER Census data for Rutherford, North Carolina. One of the contentious subjects in those posts is the correct meaning to ascribe to the inclusion within the 1790 enumeration of a Rev. David ROPER. Because the correct interpretation of the 1790 Census data may be crucial to resolving some difficult issues in Federal period ROPER genealogy, I thought it useful to dedicate a thread to the discussion of this issue. * There are four ROPERs in the 1790 Rutherford Census in all. This post is focused solely on Rev. David ROPER and the meaning to ascribe to the indication "Rev." There are the ROPERs shown in the 1790 Census for Rutherford, North Carolina: ROPER, David Rev.: 1 - 1 -- 5 -- 0 - 0 ROPER, Charles: 1 - 2 -- 5 -- 0 - 0 ROPER, David Jr.: 1 - 1 -- 1 -- 0 - 0 ROPER, Meredith: 3 - 1 -- 4 -- 0 - 0 Thus, Rev. David ROPER is shown in 1790 to have one male age 16 or more, one male under age 16 and five females within his household. * Conventional wisdom was that the Census record meant what it said and that "Rev.", a common abbreviation for "Reverend" was an honorific reflecting that the first named David ROPER was a minister or preacher of some sort. One trouble with this ascription or interpretation is that there doesn't seem to be any primary record yet found expressly confirming that there was a David ROPER serving as a preacher or minister in this time period in North Carolina. Even so, until a decade or so ago there seemed to be little dispute as to the meaning of "Rev." within this record. However, at some point, one or more ROPER researchers began arguing that "Rev." was a designation showing that this David ROPER was a Revolutionary War Veteran rather than a preacher or minister. L. David ROPER makes a reasonably compelling argument that "Rev." David ROPER might be the David ROPER found in Orange, NC, beginning about 1757, and the father of Revolutionary War Veteran David ROPER (b Oct 1755 - Orange, NC) in his published sketch on Meredith ROPER: "The Mysterious Meredith/Meriday Roper in NC" http://www.roperld.com/rncmer.htm In particular, Dave proposes: "So, David Roper Sr. possibly moved to Rutherford Co. in 1779/80, when the younger Revolutionary War David Roper stated that he moved there, and back to Caswell Co. after 1790 and before 1792. The younger David then moved to Kentucky:place>:State> in 1796." This interpretation of the data is a very reasonable construction as long as one focuses on the other facts recited in Dave's piece as to land transactions, completing IGNORING the "Rev." shown within the Census records. Although not mentioned in Dave's piece, ignoring the "Rev." in the Census record seems to be rationalized ONLY by concluding that "Rev." means Revolutionary War veteran rather than Reverend. But Dave actually goes exactly in the opposite direction ascribing the Revolutionary War Veteran as the David ROPER Jr. in the Rutherford Census record (which I believe is correct), while proposing that Rev. David ROPER is David ROPER's (b Oct 1755 - Orange, NC) father. The trouble with this ascription is that we KNOW from David ROPER's Revolutionary War pension application that he is illiterate. By contrast, it seems inconceivable that a minister (Rev.) is going to be illiterate, and teaching his children to read would seem to be something that ought to be particularly important to a minister. I find it very hard to reconcile Rev. ROPER being a minister with Rev. ROPER being the father of the Revolutionary War Veteran. In the piece on Meredith ROPER, Dave skirts the issue by simply omitting discussion of it. * Similarly, Frank BATCHELOR has another theory about the identities of the two David ROPERs in Rutherford that relies upon a marriage record in Rutherford, as well as records in Caswell and Pickens to argue that the Census record for Rev. David ROPER is actually the Census record of Revolutionary War Veteran David ROPER (b Oct 1755). Frank's construction requires adoption of the theory that "Rev." means Revolutionary War Veteran rather than "Reverend". I will let Frank make his own case rather than further elaborating and possibly explaining his theory erroneously. * * * Without regard to the secondary arguments that can be made about how EACH David ROPER fits into Federal Period ROPER genealogy, I want to address rather starkly the primary arguments which seem to me to frame the question about the significance and interpretation of the indication "Rev." on the Census record. First, it seems to me to be beyond question that "Rev." is a common abbreviation for Reverend and when appended in front of a name as an honorific usually denotes a person of the cloth. This does NOT preclude from using this same abbreviation to mean something else. But presented to a jury or focus group with no other evidence or context, I believe that there would be almost universal agreement that "Rev." means "Reverend." Even so, I do not contend that this is dispositive, but rather only that there is probably some presumption that must be overcome in order to conclude that "Rev." means something else. * Those who contend that "Rev." denotes that this David ROPER is a Revolutionary War Veteran BEGIN with the ex ante KNOWLEDGE that one of the two David ROPERs in Rutherford is later a Revolutionary War pensioner and then seem to argue that this distinguishes him from others in Rutherford, justifying the "Rev." as an honorific in respect of his veteran status. If this argument was being made in respect of a Census record in 1830 or 1840, it might be persuasive. But to make this argument in respect of a 1790 records seems to me to reflect a rather careless disregard for history and population demographics. Although statistics as to participation in the Revolutionary War vary, it is generally believed that about 250,000 American, mostly men upwards of age 16, fought at some point during the eight year history of the Revolution, even though at peak enlistments only about 90,000 ever served actively in the Continental Army and militias at any given time. To put this into context, the enumerated total population of the United States in 1790 was 3.893 million. Of these, 694,280 were slaves and 1.541 million were women. Of the men, 807,094 were age 16 and up in 1790. Since the Revolutionary War ended in 1784, this figure included all males age 10 and up at the surrender at Yorktown. If one takes the total number who served -- 250,000 -- as the numerator and divides by 807,094, one finds that about 31% of the male population of America seems to have served in the Revolution. Of course, participation varied by state and county. In Rutherford, NC, there were 1,181 household enumerated in 1790, including 1,577 males age 16 or more. If Revolutionary War participation Rutherford was typical of the overall U.S. male population age 16 or more, about 31%, then about 489 Rutherford adult males were Revolutionary War Veterans. Even if participation had been only 10%, that would still be about 158 veterans. But only ONE resident of Rutherford is shown to have an indication of "Rev." by his name. Statewide, in North Carolina, only FOUR heads of households are shown to be "Rev.". These were Rev. PATILLO, of Granville, NC; Rev. REEVES, of Orange, NC; Rev. Robert ARCHIBALD, of Mecklenburg, NC, and Rev. David ROPER, of Rutherford. Rev. Henry PATILLO, of Granville, is KNOWN to have been a Presbyterian minister. See, for example: The North Carolina Booklet, Volume 10, By Martha Helen Haywood, Mrs. Hubert Haywood, Mary Hilliard Hinton, Mrs. E. E. Moffitt (July 1910), pp. 73, 90, 206, 209: http://books.google.com/books?id=YQkyAQAAMAAJ&dq=Patillo Granville NC minister 1790&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q&f=false There were at least two Rev. REEVES in North Carolina, Rev. Thomas REEVES and Rev. Benjamin REEVES. Rev. Thomas REEVES, is KNOWN to have lived for many years in Orange County, NC. See: Lives of Christian Ministers: Over Two Hundred Memoirs, By Peter Jefferson Kernodle (Richmond, VA: L. H. Jenkins, 1909), at pp. 62-3: http://books.google.com/books?id=bKbSAAAAMAAJ&dq=Rev. Reeves Orange NC minister&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q&f=false Rev. Robert ARCHIBALD, a Presbyterian minister educated at Princeton, is KNOWN to have resided at Mecklenburg, NC. He is mentioned extensively within the book Sketches of North Carolina: Historical and Biographical, by William Henry FOOTE: http://books.google.com/books?id=MSX9MUK3BH0C&dq=Rev. "Robert ARCHIBALD" Mecklenburg NC minister&pg=PA426#v=onepage&q&f=false An excerpt from a letter written by Rev. ARCHIBALD from Mecklenburg on November 3, 1785, is shown at page 426 of this book. * * * So one possibility is that Revolutionary War Veteran David ROPER (b Oct 1755 - Orange, NC), an illiterate private with an otherwise undistinguished War record, was designated as "Rev.", while the other 157 or more Rutherford Revolutionary veterans didn't merit this designation. Or maybe "Rev." was simply intended to reflect the ordinary meaning of the abbreviation, as it seems to have been in the ONLY three other designations of "Rev." appearing within the 1790 Census. * * * If I seem to be belaboring this point, it is because correct interpretation of the primary data should INFORM our inquiry and suggest to us other possible avenues of investigation and sources of primary material that might resolve these difficult issues. By IGNORING the obvious, we waste inordinate amounts of time LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACES. Moreover, we should form our hypotheses based upon reasonable interpretations of the available data rather than seeking to rationalize WHY the data ought to be ignored or giving a strained reading to the data. * I refrain here from even addressing the secondary arguments as to the identities of the ROPERs in the Rutherford enumeration. The secondary arguments are interesting. It is NOT that Dave ROPER's construction of an argument that Rev. David ROPER might be David ROPER's (Oct. 1755) father is wholly without merit. The deed records and other documents might readily support such an ascription if one IGNORES the obvious conclusion that David ROPER was a minister. Similarly, Frank BATCHELOR's arguments about the possible connections of David ROPER, of Caswell, NC, to the Rutherford ROPERs in 1790 also has merit. But the argument as now presented seems to me to collapse as soon as one recognizes the obvious, that David ROPER, of Rutherford was ascribed the honorific "Rev.", NOT because of his status as a veteran, but because of his role as a minister. * * * Counterargument and discussion, especially by L. David ROPER and Frank BATCHELOR is encouraged, solicited and appreciated. In my view, a healthy and spirited discussion promotes an eventual convergence and embrace of the stronger arguments! 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>