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/1932.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: I have been remiss in commenting and acknowleding your EXCELLENT POST on Charles ROPER, of Dinwiddie!! I am really pleased to learn that the Dinwiddie Land Tax records are now online and it is very helpful for you to have reviewed these year by year. This is precisely the sort of effort that is sorely needed in EVERY VIRGINIA COUNTY where ROPERs resided before 1850. This is going to necessarily be a short post due to some time constraints. But I took a bit of a recreational break to help with the family of James ROPER over the weekend and at least some response to your post is now long overdue. I will endeavor to add some additional more thoughtful and in depth comments in a few weeks. I want to take some exception though to one statement you made and to distinguish what can be reasonably inferred from this data in one respect. This is your statement: "From these records, we learn that Charles Roper, Jr. is consistently shown residing in Dinwiddie County, VA from 1782. However, I will now turn to the Dinwiddie population census records, which are extant from 1810 onward." The first sentence is actually an erronoeus conclusion. While it is certainly TRUE that land ownership is usually highly correlated with residence, such ownership is hardly conclusive. One can OWN land in place one does NOT reside. And whenever one OWNS LAND, one is subject to land taxes. Thus, the VALID conclusion that one can draw from the Dinwiddie Land Tax data you cite is that Charles ROPER CONTINUOUSLY OWNED LAND in Dinwiddie during the periods you cite. Charles ROPER might or might NOT have lived there during the time periods in question. The BETTER source of ANNUAL DATA reflecting ongoing residence is the PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX data. In antiquity, the predominant source of tax revenue other than land taxes was a per capita tax (or in earlier periods tithe) payable annualy priamrily based upon the presence of taxable adult males. Additional amounts were due in respect of a variety of other kinds of property ranging from slaves, to livestock, to carriages, billiard tables or ordinary (inn/tavern) licenses. Since the counties were free to tax different things on different bases, the lists vary from county to county and from year to year. But most of these lists are extant for MOST Virginia counties from 1782 through at least 1850. While Virginia taxpayers were subject to LAND TAXES where ever they owned land, under Virginia law each citizen was only subject to Personel Property Tax in a single county. Thus, a large landowner, with residences in multiple places would only have been subject to tax in ONE of those places. As each young man reached majority, he became TAXABLE under the personal property taxes and therefore very often appeared for the FIRST TIME in the tax lists the year he turned age 21. Some lists show the young men over age 21 resident with a particular taxpayer as chargeable to that taxpayer, though this was no doubt a matter of accounting and convenience, as every person of age 21 was truly liable for their own tax. The Personal Property Tax records therefore give the single best indication of continuous presence. IF Charles ROPER removed himself from Dinwiddie for any extended period of time, it seems likely that he would have taken the position with taxing authorities that he was EXEMPT from Personal Property Tax in that county due to non-residence. The Personal Property Tax records are certainly not infallible either, nor are they absolutely conclusive of residence, but are probably at least the best evidence of such residence. (Since a Virginia taxpayer was only liable for Personal Property Tax in a single county, it seems likely that those who could arguably make the case that they were resident in one or more county probably would tend to elect to pay tax in the LOWER TAX county.) * * * I want to make a similar point about what is actually implied by appearance within a Census, as this is another matter about which there is some confusion. Conduct of Census enumerations by sovereign authorities seems to have been doen for millenia. One ancient approach was to require that everyone return "home" to be properly counted during the enumeration. But such a rule is inherently disruptive to commerce. Another approach to avoid double counting is to conduct the enumeration everywhere on the SAME DAY and to simply count EVERYONE PRESENT, residents and transients alike. This is the approach adopted in the United States during most of its history. Thus, appearance within a Census does NOT necessarily mean that the person enumerated RESIDES at the place where they were enumerated. It simply means that the person was PRESENT in that place at the date of the enumeration. Of course, since MOST PEOPLE are likely to be found at their homes and the early canvasses during periods when literacy was far less universal, the canvass necessarily took some time and when a family wasn't present or readily available the enumerator would likely RETURN. Moreover, in defining physical presence, there is a big difference between someone travelling or temporarily residing in another county or state (where they OUGHT TO BE COUNTED) and someone coming to and from the market or town or visiting a neighbor, etc. Thus the question is more along the lines of whether a person is residing at the place of enumeration AT THE DATE of the enumeration rather than whether the person is physically present when the enumerator visited. I mention this because it would be somewhat problematic with respect to family members who were traveling, perhaps for an extended visit at the date of the enumeration. Likewise, enumeration of a Methodist minister riding a circuit and possibly living mostly in his saddle would be problematic. I am certainly NOT arguing that we ought to ordinarily refrain from concluding that a person enumerated in a place might not live there. USUALLY, this is a very reasonable conclusion. Instead, I am merely pointing out that in certain respects the Personal Property Tax data is somewhat MORE conclusive of residence in a place than inclusion in a Census enumeration. If a person was living temporarily in a place, that person might be included in the Census, but NOT be liable for Personal Property Tax. The Personal Property Tax lists have the advantage of showing the LIKELY PRESENCE of a taxpayer EVERY YEAR rather than simply every TEN YEARS. The Personal Property Tax lists can also give very good insight into the coming of age of male taxpayers. By contrast, these Tax Lists do NOT usually show the entire household size or composition. The Census data gives us a much more complete picture of how many are living in each household and the age breakdowns, etc. The real value in this data is in reading these records in conjunction. * * * I am NOT arguing that Charles ROPER was NOT a resident of Dinwiddie during some or even much of the time covered by the Dinwiddie Land Tax data. There seems to be abundant evidence of residence in Dinwiddie during at least portions of this interval. Instead, I am merely suggesting that the careful genealogist ought to place greater reliance on the Personal Property Tax returns and that these tax records should be read in conjunction with the Census and Land Tax records. * * * I am still of the belief that Charles ROPER, Jr., son of Charles ROPER and Ann GOODWYN, was the Charles ROPER enumerated in Rutherford, NC, in 1790. Since any Census simply reflects the presence of those those then resident in a place, Charles ROPER's presence in Rutherford that year does NOT imply that he lived there for any extended period. He may have lived there only briefly. One possiblity that cannot be discounted is that he may have been studying for the Methodist ministry under his UNCLE Rev. David ROPER. Upon completion of this study, he may have returned to Dinwiddie. Since there was no formal study period, the length of any such study, is very unclear. The Personal Property Tax records may show us more and help us to obtain a better understanding. In a future post, I will elaborate on OTHER EVIDENCE that Charles ROPER WAS in Rutherford. There is more than a little evidence of this. 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>