This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: waroper Surnames: Roper, Atkins Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1935.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Frank: I want to make a perhaps trivial point about Charles ROPER's placement on the 1811 Stewart County Tax List. It is unclear whether the issue I distinguish would be of any significance. You stated in your post: "Charles Roper is next seen in an image of the 1811 Stewart County Tax List on page 5 on Ancestry.com. Charles is seen living within 5 properties of two members of the Atkins' family, Asa Atkins and Ephraim Atkins. On page 3 of the Tax List, you will find John Atkins, Sr., John Atkins, Jr., George Atkins, William Atkins, James Atkins, and Lewis Atkins, all listed next to each other in that order." I would call your attention to the fact that Charles ROPER is shown to be on the list of free men in Captain ATKINS' District. Though denominated as a Tax List, the core organization of this List is by MILITIA Company. Asa ATKINS is listed FIRST on this list, probably because Asa ATKINS is Captain Asa ATKINS and this is the List of HIS MILITIA COMPANY. Next, I would disagree that Charles ROPER is "living within 5 properties of two members of the Atkins' family." If you look carefully at this List, you will find that the list is primarily in quas--alphabetical order. The EXCEPTION to this Order is the first seven entries: Asa ATKINS Caleb WILLIAMS Ephraim ATKINS John WILLIAMS James WILLIAMS Charles ROPER William WRIGHT The list then picks up with Walter BROWN and continues in a mostly alphabetical order. I believe that what distinguishes the first seven entries is NOT proximity, but rather RANK. Asa ATKINS is the Captain of the Company. Caleb WILLIAMS and Ephraim ATKINS are likely to be Lieutenants and the remaining names BEFORE the alphabetical portion begins are likely to be the non-commissioned officers of this Company -- sergeants and, perhaps, a corporal. I certainly cannot PROVE that this is the organization, as there is no indication that Charles ROPER was a Sergeant in the War of 1812. But also bear in mind that the militia units were subject to annual elections of officers and the officers usually appointed the NCOs. It might be quite natural for Asa ATKINS to rely upon a brother-in-law as a sergeant in his company. While the suggestion of militia rank order is admittedly speculative, I believe that the appearance of the bulk of the list in alphabetical order precludes us from ascribing any strong inference that the list is in proximity order. I think that it could probably be inferred that Charles ROPER was "closer" either in rank, proximity and/or MIND to Captain ATKINS when Captain Atkins made up his List. But this could have begun as simply as STARTING the list around the dinner table and FIRST writing down the names of those visiting his house for dinner when he was reminded that he needed to make up a List of his Company. I think you can reasonably argue that Charles ROPER was "close" to Asa ATKINS in some way that is reflected in the List, but identification the precise nature of this "closeness" is somewhat more problematic. Charles ROPER actually served under the command of Captain James HAGGARD during the War of 1812 / Creek War. This might mean any one of a number of things. First, HAGGARD (NOT shown on the 1811 List) may have displaced Captain ATKINS by election. Second, Captain Asa ATKINS might have been placed in a battalion or regimental staff position, creating a vacancy. Third, the basic neighborhood militia organization was designed for general mobilizations, while units were separately organized and filled by VOLUNTEERS when units were needed for some extended active duty. Thus, Charles ROPER might have simply VOLUNTEERED to serve in another unit being mustered in for a particular mission or engagement. Fourth, again the basic local militia organization didn't differentiate as to company specialization. But this created some problems when a particular mission suggested a particular type of unit composition / specialty. By this, I mean simply that every man mustered in with his own rifle could readily form an infantry company. But NOT every man owned a horse! Thus, horses were mostly a privilege of officers, messengers or sometimes scouts. But also, there were both early cavalry units intended to FIGHT while mounted and also for traditional cavalry missions, including reconnaisance, scouting, screening, etc., as well as "mounted infantry," in which every member of the company was expected to have a horse and to use mounted means to get to the place of engagement, but then to engage and fight as infantry. Charles ROPER served in the War of 1812 in Dyer's Reg't, Cavalry and Mtd. Gunmen. Though I haven't made any formal study of the organiation of such a unit, I would assume that ir would be composed of one or more troops of cavalry, as well as companies of mounted infantry ("mounted gunmen"). Such a unit would be much more mobile and able to traverse greater distances quickly than a traditional infantry company operating on foot. But one could not simply designate a local Company as either cavalry or mounted gunmen. One would need to build such companies from volunteers already owning horses and able to ride well. The distinction between cavalry and mounted gunmen would also probably be a matter of skill in the saddle. A farmer might have a horse for use on a farm mostly as a draft animal to pull a plow or wagon, but only have occasions to ride regularly any distance. But a gentleman of fortune and leisure would be more likely to have both a horse and an opportunity to ride as others tilled the fields. The sons of gentlemen NOT elected as officers would have preferred a cavalry troop. Less skilled riders who owned a horse might hope to be a mounted gunman in a mounted infantry company. * Finally, finding additional members of an ATKINS family on an adjacent page, but in a different Company is less significant as to proximity. At best, one can say that there were other members of the ATKINS family in this county. But their placement in a consecutively placed List of a different company probably implies NOTHING as to proximity other than that they are in the same county. 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>