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/1851.3/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: In your post above, you assert parenthetically in discussing Meredith ROPER: "I believe that L David Roper's best guess as to Meredith's children are Solomon Benjamin, Charles, Daniel, Joshua, David, and Aaron." I was wondering if you could acquaint me with the evidence that you believe supports an ascription of ANY children whatsoever to Meredith ROPER? It seems to me that describing the ascription of these purported ancestors as a "guess" of Dave ROPER's somewhat aggrandizes the possibility for any support of such an assertion. As far as I know, there are only TWO records that purports to show Meredith ROPER as a head of household. In one of these, Meredith is shown to be one of three adult males in the household: Meredith ROPER: .. 3 - 1 - 4 -- 0 - 0 [Rutherford, NC 1790] There is one younger male in the household. This record is equally consistent with the other adult males being brothers, nephews, or simply unrelated male farm laborers. The record is also equally consistent with one or more of the females within this household being spouses or daughters of the other adult males. If there was one older male and one older female, this might support a reasonably strong inference that the male and female might be married. When there are three adult males in the household, it seems to me that there is NO strong inference whcih can be derived about the relationship of the head of household to the others. In fact, the ONLY strong inference I believe can be drawn is that Meredith is either the LAND OWNER or he is OLDER than the other members of this household. Since he was then probably at least abt age 58, it seems likely that he would have been listed as the head of household no matter what his relationship was to the others UNLESS one of the others was the land owner. * In the OTHER record, there are ZERO other males in Meredith ROPER's Pendleton household: Meredith ROPER: 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 0 [Pendleton, SC 1800] In this latter record, we find that Meredith ROPER seems to be age 45 or more (b bef 1766), but it seems likely that he is MUCH OLDER than 45. * The last extract I had of Dave's database showed Meredith ROPER to be born about 1760 in St. Peter's Parish, New Kent. Of course there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER placing Meredith ROPER in New Kent. Perhaps this was selected because this was one of the few places that Meredith was KNOWN NOT TO HAVE LIVED. The assertion that Meredith was born about 1760 seems particularly preposterous given that Dave's article "The Mysterious Meredith/Meriday Roper in NC" begins by informing us that Meredith had certified that he was the chain carrier for a survey conducted in the Granville District on 11 Apr 1752. So basically, Dave would have us believe that Meredith began his surveying career EIGHT YEARS BEFORE Meredith was born. While this makes for an interesting story, kind of like Peter Pan, I do not believe that it is true that Meredith participated in and certified a survey as a chain carrier nine years before he was conceived and eight years before he was born. I certainly see how this ascription of Meredith ROPER's birth date makes him more "mysterious", but in my view, this story simply is NOT CREDIBLE. In my view, it is MORE LIKELY that Meredith would have acted as a chain carrier not only AFTER he was born, but also AFTER he learned to walk. So I am going to go out on a limb here to assert that Meredith was probably at least age FIVE (5) before he embarked upon his career as a chain carier. This would put Meredith's year of birth at about 1747. But even after a child learns to walk, chains can be heavy and dragging surveying chains through the thick underbrush of the pine and oak canopy of North Carolina seems to me to be something that one might call upon an older child to do. There is another problem with the assertion that Meredith was a chain carrier at age FIVE and this is the problem that the chain carriers need to be able to COUNT. Thus, it seems to me to be MORE LIKELY that Meredith ROPER would have been at least age 10 to 16 before he would be used as a chain carrier. That would further push Meredith ROPER's year of birth back to something more like 1736-42. Even this is mildly problematic, since the reason to LIST the names of the chain carriers on the survey is to identify the other persons who can CERTIFY and take responsibility for the survey accuracy. The surveyor usually operates the surveying transit and does the math. But the chain carriers have to trudge across the countryside at the azimuth specified (or to mark off corners for which a bearing or azimuth is taken) and in so doing, the chain carriers will need to COUNT the number of times that they measure off the chained distance in poles. Thus, even if one used a few bright minors to conduct some portion of the survey, one would probably NOT use the names of minors in certifying the result. Thus, while I completely dismiss that possiblity that Meredith conducted the survey eight years BEFORE he was born, I think that it is POSSIBLE, but UNLIKELY that Meredith ROPER might have been born as late as 1736-42, but that is would be far more likely that Meredith was already age 21 (b bef 1732) by the time he was working as a chain carrier in 1752. * In Dave's article, he states "A Charles Roper family of Dinwiddie Co. VA moved into Brunswick Co. VA in 1767. All of the records mentioned above are several years before this date, so it appears likely that the Ropers in Brunswick Co. and Northampton Co. NC prior to this date were Charles City Co. Ropers." But that isn't what happened at all. Charles ROPER and Ann Goodwyn ROPER seem to have settled in Dinwiddie, probably before the birth of their eldest son in 1742, where they remained seemingly throughout their lives. Charles purchased a parcel in Brunswick County, NC, just as son David ROPER reached majority, which parcel they soon sold. David ROPER then bought his own land. Charles' son William ROPER later settled adjacent to David ROPER near Hickory Run and Red Oak Creek just South of the Nottoway River, within easy walking distance from the ROPER plantation in Dinwiddie. David ROPER's twin sister Laura and her husband William MOORE also settled on adjacent property near Red Oak Creek. The parcel purchased by John ROPER, of Charles City County, in Brunswick, VA, decades earlier had been SOLD in its entirety and as far as can be ascertained from the records never actually OCCUPIED by John ROPER. Since Drury STITH was a neighbor of John ROPER's in Charles City County and Drury moved to Brunswick, VA, where he became the County Clerk, it seems plausible that Drury persuaded John ROPER to invest in some land there. There is NO EVIDENCE that Charles ROPER or any of his children ever lived in New Kent. There is NO EVIDENCE that any of Charles ROPER's children ever lived in Charles City County. There is some very thin evidence that might possibly connect Charles ROPER, of Dinwiddie, to John ROPER, of Charles City County. There is NO EVIDENCE directly connecting Charles ROPER to Meredith ROPER or connecting Meredith ROPER to either New Kent or Charles City. Any connection is simply FICTIONAL. * Next, we are told that Meredith ROPER was involved in the survey of property on Rattlesnake Creek on 13 Jan 1758. Once again, I am VERY DOUBTFUL that Meredit conducted yet another survey BEFORE his date of birth. This doesn't seem very realistic to me, though I will certainly admit that conducting all these surveys before he was born certainly DOES make Meredith "mysterious," which is the theme of the article. What I do not understand is WHY this piece would be published in a genealogical publication rather than an amateur science fiction or a fantasy journal. * Next, Dave mentions the appearance of Meredith ROPER as a participant in two other surveys conducted in the vicinity of Rattlesnake Creek in 1760, the year Dave tells us in his database taht Meredith ROPER was born in New Kent County. Again, no matter how much surveying experience Dave believes Meredith had BEFORE his birth, I simply do NOT find it to be credible that Meredith would have been out surveying before he learned to walk or count. * Dave tells us in the article that Meredith ROPER appeared on the 1768 Tax List of John Oliphant for Rowan County, in an area now covered by present Iredell Co. and Catawba Co. I haven't checked the geography, but assuming it to be correct, we are now presented with yet another challenge in respect of Meredith being born in 1760. The personal property tax lists consisted of "tithable" taxpayers subject to a head tax because they were already age 21 or more. A land tax list would be limited to owners of real property. Minors were not allowed to purchase and own real property in their own names. Therefore, the appearance of Meredith ROPER on the 1768 Rowan Tax List implicitly tells us that Meredith was born before 1748, a finding consistent with a more realistic view of the age at which one might also participate in surveys. * There is NO RECORD which actually shows Meredith ROPER marrying. There is NOT RECORD showing him to be residing in a place or deeding property, which deed as grantor reflects the existence of a wife. While the 1790 Census record is certainly consistent with the possilbity that Meredith ROPER, who by 1790 was probably at least about age 58, might have had two adult sons and another son under age 16, the data is equally consistent with the possiblity that Meredith might have NEVER MARRIED and that he was simply entertaining nephews or cousins in Rutherford or sharing a house with other farm laborers. Although it has been asserted that Meredith ROPER was married to a Lucinda KEITH and perhaps this is true, NO ONE has ever actually identified ANY EVIDENCE that such a marraige ever took place. * Dave closes his sketch about the "mysterious" Meredith ROPER with what he asserts is his lineage. I will repeat ONLY the first five generations: John Roper, Jr. b 1660 d abt 1750 Charles City Co. VA uncertain John Roper b 1708 New Kent Co. VA d 1784 Fauquier Co. VA uncertain David Roper b Charles City Co. VA d abt 1794 Caswell Co. NC m Sarah (In Burke Co. NC abt 1780-1792) somewhat uncertain James Roper b abt 1766 Orange Co. NC d 1853 Burke Co. NC Samuel Roper b 6 Jan 1806 Burke Co. NC d 22 Nov 1869 Cherokee Co. NC m Rebecca Flowers * What Dave describes as "Uncertain" I would describe at best as "fanciful," but is probably more accurately described as "fraudulent." The John ROPER Jr. (b abt 1660) is simply a FICTIONAL ANCESTOR INVENTED by Dave using a composite of disparate data. ANYONE claiming to be descneded from this FICTIONAL ROPER ancestor has a FRAUDULENT lineage. There is NO EVIDENCE that a John ROPER born in New Kent died in Fauqier, Virginia. This is also complete genealogical garbage. There is NO EVIDENCE connecting a David ROPER, of Burke County, to Charles City or to New Kent. This is simply a FANCIFUL or fraudulent ascription. Finally, the evidence that James ROPER is a son of David ROPER is also very thin, certainly NOT ENOUGH to support an honest ascription. Thus, what the honest genealogist does is admit that they have hit a "brick wall" and redouble their search for VALID, verifiable data, of which there remains an ABUNDANCE. One does NOT simply GUESS at possible relationships and then publish this fiction as fact. Doing so is dishonest and serves only to confuse and mislead others. * Now back to Meredith ROPER. Despite the complete ABSENCE of any evidence that Meredith ROPER had ANY SONS, you have identified Dave's "guesses". I will address only ONE. I challenge you to find ANY EVIDENCE that there ever existed a person named "Solomon Benjamin ROPER". Go look at the primary evidence for Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Then, you should carefully assess the evidence that ANY of the others shown to be children of Meredith ROPER are ascribed based upon any valid primary evidence. Show me a valid case for ANY person to be a child of Meredith ROPERs. I doubt you can make a persuasive case, but I am willing to hear it. * In another thread, you asked WHY I assessed such a small possibility that John ROPER, of Pendleton, SC, was a son of Meredith ROPER. I believe that you can reasonably show that Meredith ROPER was born before 1732. I believe that the 1800 Census record supports a reasonably strong inference that Meredith ROPER was then married to the woman shown in the Census record to be age 45 or more (b bef 1766). This might have even been a Lucinda KEITH. But since we do NOT have a precise date of marriage and no one has ever bothered to make any investigation of the KEITH family, we have no basis to assess whether this was a marriage of long or short duration. You want to play this game of Dave's of beginning with GUESSES and then basing your next GUESS on your LAST GUESS. You have accepted Dave's "guesses." I completely REJECT THESE GUESSES, because they do NOT ADVANCE the family history but rather confuse and distort it. Dave is certainly entitled to write whatever fiction he likes. But it ought NOT be represented to be "fact." I would encourage you to DISCONNECT ANY CHILDREN you are showing for Meredith ROPER. Pick an age and year of birth range that you deem to be reasonable in respect of the actual extant evidence. Then, if Meredith ROPER's family history is of interest to you, embark upon an investigation to FIND the missing records which will firm up uncertainty. Look at the data that Dave has assembled and ask yourself what other data sources could fill in the voids. By publishing the fictional accounts as FACT, Dave has seriously set back ROPER genealogy by discouraging those who might have otherwise conducted an earnest and energetic search for the missing records. I do NOT ask for you to simply accept my constructions. When I am confident enough to make an ascription, I explain the basis and identify the supporting evidence and arguments. You can agree or disagree. When I am in doubt, I REFRAIN from making ascriptions and encourage others to also refrain from making premature conclusions. I also seek to expose new analysis and ascriptions to public review, scrutiny and critique. When I am wrong, people will sometimes quickly point out my errors. When there is doubt, it is better to defer reaching a conclusion and making an ascription. Sometimes, we will remain stuck on a particular connection for years or decades. But if we make an erroneous ascription, prematurely based upon thin or no evidence, we simply conceal the need for vigorous research and deceive others in ways that can really frustrate family history. Ultimately, we may NEVER get the ascription right when we introduce erroneous unsupported "facts" or assumptions. The bottom line is that I have NO INTEREST whatsoever in Dave's "guesses," and such guesses do not factor into my consideration or assessment at all. I am interested in the FACTS for which there is supporting primary evidence, the reasonable inferences that might be derived from such facts and the reasonable inferences about where else to look for the missing data. 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>