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/1923.1.1.4/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: I want to share a quick note on my thinking and the evidence regarding Joseph ROPER, of Pendleton, SC, and Lincoln, TN, as well as Joseph ROPER, son of Charles ROPER. First, I AGREE with you that the appearance of Joseph ROPER on an adjacent Census page in Pendleton, SC, to that of several BRACKINs and the subsequent appearance of BRACKIN as a given name within the Lincoln, TN, ROPER family very closely links Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, TN, with the Joseph ROPER, of Pendleton and supports a very strong inference that this is the SAME Joseph ROPER. Similarly, the age given for Joseph ROPER in Pendleton, is reasonably consistent with the age of the Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, TN: Joseph ROPER: 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 [Pendleton, SC 1800] Joseph ROPER: 3 - 2 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 1 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 3 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 [Lincoln] As you noted, the Joseph ROPER in Lincoln is shown to have been over age 45 (b bef 1776) and the Joseph ROPER, of Pendleton, is shown to be age 16 to 25 (b abt 1775-84). These age ranges coincide rather precisely at the year 1775, if BOTH Census returns are to be taken as correct. On the other hand, either of the Census returns might have simply put this Joseph ROPER into the WRONG category, so if the 1800 Census return was in error and UNDERSTATED Joseph ROPER's age, he could have been older than 25. If the 1820 Census return was in error, Joseph could have been younger than 45. It seems somewhat LESS likely that both Census reports are in error. And it is easier to imagine an error of a year or two in age throwing Joseph into the wrong category. It is somewhat harder to explain larger errors. Thus, in stating that Joseph ROPER was born abt 1775, we are probably suggesting an inappropriate precision, though it is difficult to justify some other particular range. Even so, I am going to rather arbitrarily use /- three years and suggest that Joseph was born abt 1772-1778. But the data is also somewhat discordant with the possibility that Joseph ROPER is the son of John ROPER, of Pendleton, SC, at least when one looks at the timing and sequence of the other children. James ROPER seems to have been born abt 1786. John ROPER seems to have been born in 1788. And David ROPER seems to have been born in 1792. If Joseph ROPER was the son of John ROPER, of Pendleton, then there was an eight or more year gap between the birth of Joseph ROPER and James ROPER. Of course, this gap might very well have been filed by the births of some daughters who had already left the household by 1790 or children who did NOT survive. In SUPPORT of the possibility that Joseph was born much earlier than the other sons, is the ABSENCE of one of the sons from John ROPER's 1800 Census record. Thus, we go from three younger males in 1790 to four in 1800: John ROPER: 1 - 3 - 2 -- 0 [Pendleton, SC 1790] John ROPER: 2 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 0 -- 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 [Pendleton, SC 1800] But we infer that since two of the sons in 1800 were under age 10 that John ROPER must have had a total of FIVE sons. But here is where the evidence somewhat works against the ascription of this Joseph ROPER as another son of John ROPER, at least if the 1820 Census return is correct. Realize that the 1790 Census had only three categories for white persons. First was males age 16 or more. Next was males under age 16. And finally, one category included ALL females. Thus, the 1790 Census implicitly tells us that ALL of John ROPER's sons were then UNDER age 16 of born AFTER 1774. This is actually still consistent with Joseph ROPER being born precisely in 1775. He could have been age 15 in 1790, age 25 in 1800 and age 45 in 1820, lacing each of these categories EXACTLY at the margin. This is still reasonably consistent with the OTHER information imparted by the Census. The 1800 Census record for Joseph ROPER clearly reflects what appears to be a newly married young couple with only ONE child under age five: Joseph ROPER: 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 [Pendleton, SC 1800] This seems most consistent with Joseph having married within about one to five years of the 1800 Census. If he had married sooner, there would probably be more children. If he had only just married in late 1799 or early 1800, his wife probably would NOT have yet had a child. Considering the age range shown for 1800, that Joseph was age 16 to 25 (b abt 1775-84), we also have at least some reason to suspect that he would have been at the upper end of that age range even absent the 1820 Census return, since it would have been LESS LIKELY that he would have married at age 14 or 15 (neccessary if he was only age 16 in 1800) or even that he married before ago 20. In my view, even absent the 1820 Census, simply based upon likelihood of marriage at different ages, the 1800 Census data supports an inference that Joseph was born abt 1775-80 and was age 20 to 25 at the 1800 Census enumeration. Thus, IF this Joseph ROPER is John ROPER's son, we might reasonably truncate the implied range around 1775 recognizing that going much BELOW 1775 would contradict what is shown by the 1790 Census data AND also conflict with what we expect as to the likely age of marriage. * * * Overall, it seems to me that the data is reasonably consistent with the possibility that Joseph ROPER might be John ROPER's son, and that, if so, he might have been born about 1775-80, with 1775 the expected value. Joseph could have been a son by a first marriage of John ROPER's punctuated by some gap in the children's ages. * * * * * Next, consider briefly the facts that are known about Joseph ROPER, son of Charles ROPER and Elizabeth BUTLER, about which we know very little. In my post "", I identified the possible birth sequence and years of births of Charles and Elizabeth Roper BUTLER's children as: Nancy ROPER (b 06 Apr 1777) m Benjamin MOORE on 22 Dec 1796 Elizabeth ROPER (b abt 1780 - Dinwiddie, VA) m Banister SHACKLEFORD Goodwin ROPER (b bef 1784), died in youth Martha ROPER m Richard LEDBETTER Joseph ROPER m Miss WHITEHEAD Dolly ROPER (b 01 Nov 1790) m Louis MEREDITH Whether Goodwyn came before or after Martha and Joseph remains in doubt. It is certainly POSSIBLE that the list simply was NOT in birth order, though there is some support for the idea that it was. Stating that Goodwyn was born before 1784 is consistent with his being born in 1778, 1779, 1780 (with Elizabeth), 1781, 1782, or 1783. If Goodwyn was added as an afterthought, it is equally possible that Goodwyn was born before Elizabeth as that he was born afterwards. If the list imparts birth order EXCEPT FOR Goodwyn, it seems most likely that Charles ROPER's son Joseph ROPER was born abt 1781-89, though I believe that Dolly ROPER's age was understated and that she was probably actually born before 1790. At the HIGHER end of the age range and lower end of the year range for Joseph, Charles ROPER's son Joseph ROPER could therefore plausibly be the Joseph ROPER found in Pendleton in 1800. For example, suppose that this Joseph ROPER was bornin 1781. He might have married Miss WHITEHEAD at age 18 (1799) had one child and been within the age range 18 to 25 in 1790: Joseph ROPER: 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 -- 0 - 0 [Pendleton, SC 1800] In my view, the Pendleton record is completely CONSISTENT with the possibility that this Joseph ROPER was Charles ROPER's son, IF Joseph ROPER was actually born in about 1781-2 and probably incompatible with this possibility if Charles' son Joseph ROPER was born about 1787-8. Thus, the importance of further establishing Joseph ROPER's year of birth or some better indication of his whereabouts and disposition between 1790 and 1800. Realize as well that what we know about the YEAR of Joseph W. ROPER's birth is also quite consistent with the Pendleton record. Joseph W. ROPER is shown to be age 47 in the 1850 Census and was consistently shown to be born after 1800 in the previous Census data for Dinwiddie. Thus, we have a very young couple of rather precisely the correct AGE to be Joseph W. ROPER's parents. Then we have the further natty problem that there was also a Charles ROPER in Pendleton during this interval: Charles ROPER:.. 2 - 1 - 1 - 0 - 1 -- 4 - 2 - 0 - 1 - 1 -- 0 - 0 [Pendleton, SC 1800] Chas. ROPER:.... 1 - 1 - 0 - 0 - 1 -- 2 - 2 - 1 - 0 - 1 -- 0 - 1 [Pendleton, SC 1810] This Charles ROPER is over age 45 in 1800 (b bef 1766). Though the COUNTS for this Charles ROPER seem incompatible with the family of Charles and Elizabeth Butler ROPER, this is ONLY the case if one excludes the possibility that a son or daughter and grandchildren could have been present in Charles ROPER's household. Of course, you have shown that Charles ROPER was present in Dinwiddie. But the land records actually do NOT prove this. * * * There is also some rather stark contrary evidence. Joseph W. ROPER's 1850 Census record shows him to have been born in Virginia rather than South Carolina. Joseph's daughter also showed Joseph's place of birth to be Virginia in the 1880 Census record. Thus, IF the Joseph ROPER in Pendleton was Charles ROPER's son, then he would have migrated back to Dinwiddie by 1803. OR, if Miss WHITEHEAD was from Dinwiddie, she might have returned home to have her child. * * * * * I want to emphasize that I am NOT taking the position that the Joseph ROPER in Pendleton was Charles ROPER's son. But rather, I believe that we cannot yet EXCLUDE that possiblity based upon readily available extant evidence. IF we were to conclude that Joseph ROPER, of Pendleton, SC, WAS Charles ROPER's son, this would present the additional question as to whether this meant that Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, TN, was also Charles ROPER's son, or whether it simply demonstrated that the ascription that Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, was the SAME Joseph ROPER shown in the 1800 Census record. * * * Overall, I think it is MORE LIKELY that Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, TN, was another son of John ROPER, and that Joseph ROPER, of Lincoln, is one and the same as Joseph ROPER, of Pendleton, SC, but I am NOT willing to reach a more definitive conclusion without further study of additional primary records, especially the Personal Property Tax records for Dinwiddie. 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>