Since you seem to take a scholarly interest in family history and base your ascriptions on actual evidence, I will also share with you the very tentative alternative theory as to Nancy COE's origins which I had developed over the last few days, but which seems to be overcome by the very specific evidence you provided. It is completely CIRCUMSTANTIAL and would NOT support an ascription even if you hadn't identified reasonably conclusive evidence supporting the established ascription that John COE married a Nancy SCOTT. I was treating it simply as an avenue of inquiry.

Even so, the circumstantial evidence is interesting and instructive and I think you will see WHY I wondered as to whether the oral history or family lore as to the identity of John COE's wife might have been garbled in the retelling.

I have recently been assisting another ROPER researcher in his investigation of the family of David and Nancy (Lewis) ROPER, who settled in Cumberland County and are shown on the 1810 and 1820 Census as residents of Cumberland County. David ROPER obtained grants to several parcels on the Cumberland RIver near the mouth of Galloway Creek as well as a 93 acre parcel on Kettle Creek. David ROPER's brother John C. ROPER and David ROPER's son also had land nearby in Cumberland and Monroe County.

Also settling on or near Kettle Creek is a Charles LEWIS, who is believed to possibly be Nancy (Lewis) ROPER's brother, though this relationship has NOT been proven and must necessarily be treated as speculative.

In 1810, David ROPER is found at Census Image 16 of 22 at Ancestry for the Burksville, Cumberland enumeration. On the previous Census page there is a William MURLEY, as well as a Jacob SCOTT and John SCOTT [Image 15].

John COE is shown to be enumerated in Surry, NC, that year. Coe seems to be married with a wife age 26 to 44 (b abt 1766-84). Note that this age range is actually very slightly INCONSISTENT with the age shown for Nancy COE in the 1850 Census record, age 65 (b abt 1785 - NC).

In 1820, David ROPER is again enumerated residing in Cumberland on the list for the Paoli Post Office [Image 17]. Immedaitely adjacent to David ROPER is Daniel MURLEY. On the very same page a few records later the name Charles LEWIS appears. John COE also appears on this very same page near the bottom, adjacent to William SCOTT.

Philip LAWSON appears on the following Census page [Image 18] and several SCOTTs appear there, as well: Jacob SCOTT, John SCOTT, Shadrach SCOTT and Nathaniel SCOTT.

David and Nancy ROPER seem to have migrated to Rhea County, Tennessee, by 1825 (Tax List) and are shown to be residing in Rhea in the 1830 Census. David and Nancy ROPER seem to have resided in the area of Rhea later separated into Meigs County, though they are never shown in the Census there.

The 1828 deed executed by John COE which I cited was witnessed by Charles LEWIS, the person suspected to be Nancy (Lewis) ROPER's brother. Of course, this proves nothing more than that Charles LEWIS and John COE were neighbors and that Charles was trusted by the grantee of John COE's deed. As mentioned, it is also far from certain that Charles LEWIS was in fact Nancy's brother.

In 1830 and 1831, David and Nancy (Lewis) ROPER conveyed the original parcels obtained on the Cumberland River at the mouth of Galloway Creek to Clement SCOTT and Joel SCOTT by three deeds. Cumberland Deed Book G, Page 241, 242, 244. David and Nancy ROPER executed each deed and are shown to be residents of Rhea County at the date of the conveyances. The deeds were proven by the appearance of David and Nancy ROPER before the Rhea County Court in Februrary 1831 and thereafter recorded in Cumberland County, KY, in August 1831.

Thus, we have David and Nancy as counterparties to deeds in favor of members of the SCOTT family.

It bears mention that David and Nancy ROPER are believed to have had possilby as many as six daughters (based upon Census data), though to date the names or spouses of these daughters are UNKNOWN. One or more of these may have married in Cumberland County before David and Nancy relocated to Rhea.

*

After the sale of the land on Galloway Creek David and Nancy (Lewis) ROPER seem to have continued to own the 93 acre parcel on Kettle Creek.

There are two additional documents in the Cumberland deed records which inform our understanding of the disposition of this parcel. I have NOT seen the underlying Image of either of these two documents, however these seem to have been abstracted by a leading Cumberland researcher.

These two documents are shown at the Cumberland deed site as:

15 Dec 1856: Milton MURLEY as Atty in Fact for John A. ROPER Deed To Jacob CAIN; Book O, Page 32
23 Dec 1857: John A. ROPER's Power of Attorney in favor of Milton MURLEY; Book O, Page 291

Secondary sources assert that the book "Cumberland County Kentucky Will Records 1815-1912" compiled by Laura Lee Butler, contains the following abstracted information:

"Milton Murley, Att. for John A. Roper, Ex.of David Roper, dec. of Monroe Co., KY to Jacob Cain land on Kettle Creek; 11/5/1856; O-32". P 336

"John A. Roper of Macon, MO. p. a. to Milton Murley of the Co. to deed land as heir or adm. of David Roper, dec.; 6/2/1843". P. 350.

Thus, it is asserted that John A. ROPER, David and Nancy ROPER's son made out a power of attorney in favor of Milton MURLEY on June 2, 1843, which power seems to reflect that John A. ROPER was acting as administrator of the estate of David ROPER, deceased.

However, the 93 acre parcel on Kettle Creek wasn't actually sold until more than thirteen years later in December 1856. This is at least suggestive of the possibility that David ROPER might have left his widow (or some other person) a life estate in the Kettle Creek parcel.

Frankly, the examination of the underlying Cumberland deed records in respect of both the power and the deed is essential. Also essential is an examination of the extant Tax Lists for Cumberland to identify which taxpayer was taxed on this land between 1843 and 1856.

Acting SOLELY on the hunch that Nancy (Lewis) ROPER might have survived her husband and possibly been still resident in Cumberland County as late as 1850, I did a search looking for Nancys in the 1850 Census born about 1776 to 1786. That search yielded these search results:

Nancy BOULDIN, age 72 (b abt 1778 - VA)
Nancy CAREY, age 65 (b abt 1785 - VA)
Nancy COE, age 65 (b abt 1785 - NC)
Nancy EMBREE, age 66 (b abt 1784)
Nancy EWING, age 64 (b abt 1786)
Nancy HAGGARD, age 74 (b abt 1776 - VA)
Nancy JEWELL, age 68 (b abt 1782 - VA)
Nancy LEWIS, age 64 (b abt 1786 - NC)
Nancy NEELEY, age 74 (b abt 1776 - VA)
Nancy TRAYLOR, age 65 (b abt 1776 - VA)

When I looked at Nancy COE's 1850 Census record, it had a very interesting characteristic!

John and Nancy COE are enumerated immediatley adjacent to the household of Jackson MURLEY. Another MURLEY household and several SCOTT households were also on this very same Census page. Thus, the holder of John A. ROPER's POA to sell the land on Kettle Creek, Milton MURLEY, of Monroe County, seems likely to be connected to MURLEYs living adjacent to John COE and the grantees of David ROPER's 1830 and 1831 deeds are surnamed SCOTT.

Out of ten candidate records of Nancys living in Cumberland and in respect of 121 Census pages in 1850 from the Southern portion of the county, one of these turned out to be rather precisely located not merely proximate to where David and Nancy ROPER had lived, but also immediately adjacent to a MURLEY household. David ROPER's son John A. ROPER had married a MURLEY, which is probably how a Milton MURLEY came to act as John A. ROPER's attorney-in-fact.

Note also that the ultimate sale of David ROPER's 93 acre parcel was after John COE's death.

Of course, this PROVES NOTHING other than that there is a Nancy living Cumberland County in very close proximity to the place that David and Nancy (Lewis) ROPER once lived along Kettle Creek. I have NO EVIDENCE that Nancy (Lewis) ROPER was then still living EXCEPT that the 93 acre parcel went unsold some 13 years after David ROPER was apparently dead and John A. ROPER had given Milton MURLEY a POA to sell the land in Cumberland.

In assessing the evidence supporting the ascription of Nancy SCOTT as John COE's wife, I found the evidence previously posted by other researchers to be wanting, especially those who asserted that John COE had married Nancy in Surry County and that the marriage record had been destroyed by a Cumberland Court House fire. That simply didn't make any sense and didn't pass the smell test.

Assertions that there was an oral tradition that John COE married a Nancy SCOTT might very well have been muddled had a daughter of David and Nancy (Lewis) ROPER married a SCOTT. Under such circumstances, Nancy (Lewis) ROPER COE might have been the mother-in-law to a SCOTT and this could have just gotten garbled.

I am NOT now asserting that this is the case. Rather, I am simply pointing out that while oral tradition and family lore is often very helpful, it also often gets garbled in the retelling. Therefore, when someone seeks to support an ascription based upon tradition, the question quickly becomes is this lore from an ancient member of the family who actually KNEW someone and heard this directly OR is the "lore" something that someone copied off an Internet posting or from a poorly researched published history.

* * *

It really does NOT MATTER to me whether John COE married a Nancy SCOTT, a Nancy (Lewis) ROPER or some other Nancy. This is NOT even my branch of the ROPER family. I simply help other ROPER researchers and in this case it appeared to me that descendants of David and Nancy ROPER were operating under a FALSE PREMISE that Nancy (Lewis) ROPER was already dead when the delay in the sale of the land on Kettle Creek might suggest otherwise.

I simply aggressively follow the evidence where ever it leads. We have NOT yet identified a PLACE OF DEATH for either David ROPER or Nancy (Lewis) ROPER or a reliable date of death for either. They are last seen in the 1830 Census residing in Rhea, TN, and in the deed records cited above, though their sale of the other Cumberland parcels and a coinciding sale of land in McMinn, TN, suggests that David and Nancy (Lewis) ROPER might have been liquidating real property in contemplation of a relocation.

My fellow ROPER researchers are still seeking to identify David and Nancy (Lewis) ROPER's heretofore unidentified daughters, as well as one unidentified son.

I will look at the the other Nancys in Cumberland still living in 1850 and will similarly challenge assumptions and ask about evidence to better understand whether established ascriptions are well supported by valid evidence.

Thanks again for showing me a VALID primary record supporting the ascription. Hopefully other COE researchers will begin using this record in support of their assertions!