Within my prior post "William ROPER First Appears Within the Pittsylvania Tax Lists in 1795," I showed the data for WIlliam ROPER, of Pittsylvania for years prior to 1800, showing that the Tax List records for William ROPER, of Pittsylvania, are quite consistent with the possibility that this WIlliam ROPER is the son of David and Sarah ROPER:
"William ROPER First Appears Within the Pittsylvania Tax Lists in 1795" (27 Mar 2015 7:17PM GMT)
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/1915.6/mb.ashx*
In this post, I brign the Pittsylvania Personal Property Tax List data forward.
Here is the data for William ROPER beginning in 1800:
William ROPER: 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 [1800] (List "A", Page 16)
William ROPER: 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 [1801] (List "A", Page 29)*
William ROPER: 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 [1802] (List "A", Page 16)
William ROPER: 1 - 1 - 1 - 4 [1803] (List "A", Page 16)
William ROPER: 1 - 0 - 2 - 2 [1804] (List "A", Page 15)
NO ROPERs [1805] (List "A," at Page 16, or List "B," at Page 15)
NO ROPERs [1806] (List "A," at Page 16, or List "B," at Page 14)
* In 1801, List "A" gives taxpayer's names in a single column on a "Portrait" oriented page in larger print. In each other year, that data in presented in two columns on a "Landscape" oriented page in small print. This accounts for the difference in number of pages and placement in the list.
Each of these counts represent:
[1] White males above 16
[2] Blacks 16 and over
[3] Blacks under 16 and over 12
[4] Horses & colts
Images of each of these tax records is available by subscription or purchased CD from Binns Genealogy. The original records and microfilm images are at the Virginia State Library and Archives.
* * * *
Please understand that I have NOT inspected each year after 1806 to see if William ROPER reappears in Pittsylvania, though I will spot check a few years in the future. Binns currently makes available the Pittsylvania Personal Property Tax images through 1812.
Binns Genealogy also makes the 1800 Pittsylvania Tax List Images available directly free to all:
http://www.binnsgenealogy.com/VirginiaTaxListCensuses/Pittsy... * * * * *
As Frank has previously noted, he suspects that William ROPER of Pittsylvania is probably the SAME William ROPER involved in a messy divorce with his wife "Polly" in Tennessee. I AGREE. I believe that the rather precise disappearance of William ROPER, of Pittsylvania, VA, in precisely the very year that WIlliam ROPER, of Tennessee states in his divorce petition to the legislature that he departed Virginia for Tennessee is reasonably conclusive that this is the SAME WIlliam ROPER.
In 1790, there were only TWO William ROPERs shown in the Virginia Tax Lists statewide:
William ROPER: 1 - 3 - 0 - 3 [Brunswick, VA 1788] (Image 23)*
William ROPER: 1 - 2 - 1 - 4 [New Kent 1791] (Image 15)*
See:
"ROPERs in the Virginia 1790 Personal Property Tax Lists and Land Tax Lists" (29 Mar 2015 12:00AM GMT)
http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.roper/2019.1/mb.ashxWilliam ROPER (b 26 Jun 1753 - VA, d bef Oct 1803 - Edgefield, SC), of Brunswick, seems to be sons of Charles ROPER and Ann GOODWYN. He migrated to Edgefield, SC, and died there.
By contrast, William ROPER (d abt 1795-6), of New Kent seems to have remained in New Kent through 1795 (the year William ROPER, of Caswell, NC, first appears in Pittsylvania, VA), and then William ROPER, of New Kent seems to have DIED there by the date of the 1796 New Kent Tax List.
* * *
There are several other William ROPER, statewide in Virginia first appearing in Tax Lists after 1790 whom I will discuss in a separate post soon. However, one of these William ROPER, of Charlotte, VA, is KNOWN to have died in Charlotte, VA, where there are probate and guardianship records which would absolutely preclude him from being the William ROPER later involved in the divorce with Polly in Tennessee. Others maybe excluded for other reasons, but with less evidence.
It can be systematically shown not only that William ROPER, of Pittsylvania is the MOST LIKELY candidate to be the William ROPER invovled in the divorce, but careful examination of the OTHER William ROPERs in Virginia essentially ELIMINATES all others from serious consideration.
* * * * *
In my view, Frank's theory that William ROPER, of Pittsylvania, VA, is the William who divorced Polly ROPER in Tennessee is unassailable and can be now treated as conclusive, though I will follow up with further evidence excluding other candidates.
Of course, we can probably also establish the identity of the William ROPER involved in the divorce simply by inspecting the original legislative petition and response.
This does NOT seem to me though to preclude the possible validity of Frank's other analysis linking William ROPER to Sumner County, TN. I do NOT believe that the ascription of William ROPER of Caswell, NC, as the William ROPER later found in Pittsylvania and involved in the divorce with Polly is mutually exclusive of the presence of this very same William ROPER in Sumner County.
In fact, some of the abstracts of extant court records of a later probate seem to suggest that the William ROPER involved in the divorce may have also settled in Sumner, but no one seems to want to examine the underlying records.
In short, I believe that Frank has set forth a very nice and elaborate proof that William ROPER, of Caswell, NC, later settled in Sumner. But in seeking to do so WITHOUT acknowledging the obvious -- that WIlliam ROPER first migrated to Pittsylvania, the county where his wife was raised -- and DENYING that Keziah (Yates) ROPER was already dead, the proof is unnecessarily elaborate.
With much less effort, one can simply look at the Personal Property Tax records YEAR BY YEAR and there show rather precisely the migration! Similarly, the legislative petition and the later court records are also going to be separate conclusive proof.
The proof is exceptionally SIMPLE using the tax records and much harder linking William ROPER to various other individuals at either end of the journey while seeking to IGNORE the large time gap that can be readily explained using Tax List data. Frank has done an exemplary job making his case. But acceptance of the obvious gives us records which essentially reconcile everything.
The part which remains UNRECONCILED is the fraudulent ascription of various ROPER ancestors as children (sometimes asserted to have been born out of wedlock) to William and Keziah ROPER, or children which the Fictionalists insist were born to Keziah posthumously after Keziah's death. In my view, those who believe that William ROPER's children were delivered from Keziah's casket after her death should come forward with some actual evidence in support of their bizarre theories, which seem to me unlikely to survive much scrutiny by honest family historians.
Those of you who believe that you were descended from Keziah based upon these fantastic assertions ought to really consider whether you prefer to claim descent from a zombie and seriously want to continue to claim conception and birth from a corpse or whether it would be better to be descended from a REAL PERSON, even if she turns out to be a mildly scandalous figure like Polly ROPER!