Sisser ref 15 — John E. Stillwell, M.D., Historical and Genealogical Miscellany — Data Relating to the Settlement and Settlers of New York and New Jersey, Vol. I, NY 1903 — 'CENSUS OF STATEN ISLAND IN THE YEAR 1706' naming Benjaman Coper age 38 + 5 sons (NONE named Daniel)

Transcription and notes

• Parent entry: L.13 — Fred Sisser III, 4 April 2016 letter. This entry is the verbatim transcription of Sisser's enclosed reference 15.
• Source: John E. Stillwell, M.D., Historical and Genealogical Miscellany — Data Relating to the Settlement and Settlers of New York and New Jersey, Vol. I (New York 1903), presenting "CENSUS OF STATEN ISLAND IN THE YEAR 1706" (transcribed from NY Colonial Manuscripts Vol. 42 p. 60 at Albany).
• Examined: 2026-04-26. (image held in the family archive) pages 10–13. Reference number "15" handwritten in upper-right margin of all four pages.
• Files:
• Title page: (image held in the family archive)
• Census introduction (Stillwell's dating argument): (image held in the family archive)
• Census start (men/women/boys/girls columns): (image held in the family archive)
• Census continuation (second sheet, more men/women/boys/girls): (image held in the family archive)

Source identification (scan p. 10 = title page)

Verbatim title page text:

HISTORICAL

AND

GENEALOGICAL MISCELLANY

Data Relating to the Settlement and Settlers of

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY

JOHN E. STILLWELL, M. D.

─────

VOL. I.

─────

NEW YORK

1903

(Sisser's reference number "15" handwritten in upper-right corner.)

Page 11 — "CENSUS OF STATEN ISLAND IN THE YEAR 1706" (Stillwell's dating argument)

Page header: "CENSUS OF STATEN ISLAND IN THE YEAR 1706."

Page-of-host-publication number: "125" at top-right.

Right-margin: handwritten "15" continuing the reference number.

Verbatim opening paragraph:

Among the New York Colonial Manuscripts (Vol. 42, p. 60) at Albany is a record which purports to be a "List of the Inhabitants of the Towns of New Rochelle and Westchester" for the year 1698. This may be correct so far as it relates to the opening page, but the remaining sheets which make up the document are beyond doubt [?] a complete or partial census of the inhabitants of Staten Island. It is of considerable worth, enumerating as it does, the names of the residents of the Island, but especially valuable as it gives the respective ages of the males. It is without date, but it is my conviction that it was made in the year 1706. This inference is supported by the following facts:

Stillwell's quoted Cornbury letter:

"As for the number of Inhabitants of this Province I sent one exact list of them about four years ago, and another two years ago, where these were distinguished by Whites, and Blacks, Males and Females; I will take care a new list shall be taken and sent by the first opportunity."

Lord Cornbury to the Board of Trade, New York, July 1st, 1706. (N. Y. Col. MSS. Vol. V.: p. 56.)

Then a list of family-record / tombstone-age entries used to date the census:

James Poillon born 1681. Family Record. aged 25 yrs. in Census. → makes 1706 date of Census.

Gershom Stillwell b. Aug. 17, 1683. Family Record. aged 23 yrs. in Census. → makes 1706 date of Census.

Thomas Farmar b. 1673, according to Whitehead. aged 33 yrs. in Census. → makes 1706 date of Census.

Nicholas Britten b. 1679 (d. Jan. 12, 1740 aged 61, Tombstone). aged 27 yrs. in Census. → makes 1706 date of Census.

John Poillon b. in 1679. Family Record. aged 26 yrs. in Census. → makes 1705 date of Census.

Cornelius Nefes bapt. Jan. 19, 1661. aged 44 yrs. in Census. → makes 1705 date of Census.

Nathaniel Britten bapt. July 14, 1678, Aged 13, Dutch Church, Brooklyn, born 1665. aged 42 yrs. in Census. → makes 1707 date of Census.

Page 12 — Census continues with three more dating-argument cases + start of the 4-column census

Top of page (page-of-host-publication number not clearly visible):

George Nefes b. 1686. Family Record. aged 22 yrs. in Census. → makes 1708 date of Census.

John Nefes b. 1688. Family Record. aged 20 yrs. in Census. → makes 1708 date of Census.

Gerard Croose [Gerrit Kroesen] d. 1767 aged 82, Tombstone at Feasterville, Pa., b. 1685. aged 24 yrs. in Census. → makes 1709 date of Census.

It may become necessary to revise this date, but until we can secure more exact data I believe that 1706 should be accepted.

─ J. E. S.

Then the 4-column census begins:

(The original "16 to 60" header has the second "[16 to 60 in" struck out; the column ages-out at 60 for men.)

Cooper-relevant entries on this page (in the MEN column):

Benjaman Coper 38 [?]

(Listed near the bottom of the MEN column on this page; Sisser's claim of Benjamin Cooper as a Staten Island resident in 1706 is verified verbatim. Benjamin's age "38" yields a back-calculated birth year of c. 1668 — consistent with Sisser's hypothesis that Benjamin Cooper married in NY in April 1694 [per L.13n] when he would have been ~26.)

Cooper-relevant entries on this page (in the WOMEN column):

Eliner Coper

(Listed in the WOMEN column. Stillwell's census format pairs married couples loosely by their relative position in the men/women columns; "Eliner Coper" is Benjamin's apparent wife as of 1706. The 2026-04-26 zoom-corrected reading at L.13n is "Helena Wilkins" for the 1694 marriage; "Helena" and "Eliner" / "Eleanor" are routine variant spellings of the same Latinate / Anglo-Dutch given name, so the most parsimonious reading is that Helena Wilkins of 1694 = Eliner Coper of 1706 — same person, single marriage. The earlier "Hannah Wiltse" reading at L.13n was a misread; the discrepancy it raised is now retired.)

(The page also lists many other men/women/boys/girls of Staten Island in 1706 — full transcription of all entries is deferred as not Cooper-relevant; only the Cooper-family entries are catalog-priority.)

Page 13 — Census continues (second sheet) — THE COOPER SONS

Page header: "CENSUS OF STATEN ISLAND IN THE YEAR 1706."

Page-of-host-publication number: "131" [?] at top-right.

Right-margin: handwritten "15" continuing the reference number.

The page continues the 4-column census format (MEN / WOMEN / BOYS / GIRLS), starting a "Second sheet" header at top.

** Cooper-relevant entries in the BOYS column:**

Benjamin Coper

Francis Coper

John Coper

Joseph Coper

William Coper

(Listed consecutively in the BOYS column on page 13. Five Coper sons — exactly Sisser's "number of sons in 1706" — and NONE NAMED DANIEL. Stillwell's census format clusters siblings by surname, making the 5-son grouping unmistakable.)

(Other boys on the page include James Bunnil [?], Joseph Lasonyear, Charles Morgan, Peter brovat, Coben bebout, etc. — non-Cooper boys whose names are not catalog-priority but transcribed for completeness on adjacent rows.)

The MEN, WOMEN, and GIRLS columns on this page contain numerous further Staten Island residents (including a "Lambert Garrison — Vice" annotation, indicating Lambert Garrison was Vice-something — possibly Vice-Sheriff or Vice-Magistrate — at the bottom of the column). No additional Coper entries appear on page 13 in the WOMEN or GIRLS columns, suggesting Benjamin and Eliner had only the five sons (no daughters listed in the 1706 census).

Cooper-relevant content — comprehensive summary

The 1706 Staten Island census documents the entire Cooper / Coper household:

All five sons are below age 16 (per the column header "BOYS" and the "MEN FROM 16 TO 60" header excluding teenage-and-up males from the men's list). This means none of the Coper sons could have been ages 11+ in 1706 with high confidence — and Daniel Cooper Sr. was age 11 in 1706 (b. May 1695). Daniel's absence from the list is structurally definitive: he was not in the Coper household on Staten Island in 1706.

Observations and notes

• ** PRIMARY-SOURCE DOCUMENTATION OF SISSER'S "1706 SONS LIST" CLAIM.** Sisser's cover letter says: "Further research on Benjamin Cooper of Staten Island, however, eventually proved that, though he had a number of sons in 1706 (when Daniel was eleven years old), none was named Daniel ('15')." The 1903 Stillwell publication transcribes the original NY Colonial Manuscripts Vol. 42 p. 60 census in full, listing all five sons by name. Sisser's claim is verbatim-confirmed.
• The 1706 census surname spelling is "Coper" (single "p", no terminal "-ir"), distinct from L.13k's 1698 "Coupir" spelling and Sisser's cover-letter "Coopir." The variation across documents (Coupir 1698, Coper 1706, Cooper 1727+) is consistent with the documented Anglo-Dutch surname-stabilization pattern of the early 1700s — same family, evolving spelling.
• Discrepancy between L.13n and ref 15 RESOLVED 2026-04-26. Earlier passes flagged "Hannah Wiltse" (1694 marriage) vs. "Eliner Coper" (1706 census) as a wife-identity conflict. The user-supplied page-9 zoom corrected the 1694 reading to "Helena Wilkins". "Helena" = "Eliner" / "Eleanor" / "Hellena" are routine variant spellings of the same given name; the maiden surname Wilkins is overwritten by the married surname Coper in the 1706 census. Single marriage, single wife, name-form variation across transcribers — no remarriage is needed to explain the data.
• Stillwell's dating to 1706 is methodologically sound: he uses 7 individuals' independently-attested birth years from family records and tombstones to back-calculate the census date. Five of seven yield 1706; two yield ~1707–1708. Stillwell's argument is "until we can secure more exact data I believe that 1706 should be accepted." This dating has been widely accepted in subsequent Staten Island scholarship.
• Sisser's logic chain through ref 15:
• Step 1 (L.13k): Benjamin Coupir was an assessor in Richmond Co. (= Staten Island) in 1698.
• Step 2 (L.13n): A "Benj. Cooper" married "Helena Wilkins" in NY on 7 April 1694 (zoom-corrected reading 2026-04-26).
• Step 3 (ref 15 = this reference): The same Benjamin Cooper appears in the 1706 Staten Island census with five sons — Benjamin, Francis, John, Joseph, William.
• Step 4 (Sisser's conclusion): Benjamin Cooper of 1694 NY = Benjamin Coupir of 1698 Staten Island = Benjamin Coper of 1706 Staten Island, with five sons by 1706 — but no son named Daniel.
• Step 5 (Sisser's hypothesis ruled out): Therefore Benjamin Cooper of Staten Island is NOT the father of Daniel Cooper Sr. (who would have been age 11 in 1706 and would have appeared in the BOYS column if a member of this family).
• The 5 Coper sons are themselves a research lead — independent of the Daniel-Sr.-paternity question. Benjamin, Francis, John, Joseph, and William Coper of Staten Island ca. 1700–1706 may have descendants of their own; their later marriages (compare L.13n's "Cooper, John × Hannah Frost 1702" — possibly = this John Coper as an adult; "Cooper, Joseph × Mary Graham 1701" — possibly = this Joseph Coper as an adult) suggest the Staten Island Cooper line continued well into the 18th century. None of these sons is currently in our catalog as a Cooper line of interest. [Per memory: Long Island English-colonial Coopers descend from James Cooper Sr. of Southampton 1654-1722, NOT from this Staten-Island Benjamin line — so the Staten Island Coopers are a distinct third Cooper kindred, neither Daniel-Sr. nor Roxbury/Long-Island.]
• Census header "MEN FROM 16 TO 60 [16 to 60 in crossed out]" suggests the original manuscript or Stillwell's transcription draft initially had a different age range, with "16 to 60" struck through. The crossed-out fragment is preserved verbatim per CLAUDE.md.

Catalog impact

• ** Definitive primary-source documentation of the "1706 Coper-sons-without-Daniel" claim** that ruled out Sisser's Benjamin-Cooper-as-Daniel's-father hypothesis. The catalog now has the source of Sisser's argument verbatim.
• The Helena-Wilkins ↔ Eliner-Coper identification confirms a single 1694–1706+ marriage (no remarriage required). Resolved 2026-04-26 by the page-9 zoom correction.
• The 5 sons of Benjamin Coper (Benjamin, Francis, John, Joseph, William) are the Staten Island Cooper line that continued past 1706. The "Cooper, John × Hannah Frost 1702" entry on L.13n's marriage-license page may correlate with this line's John Coper as an adult (though chronology is tight). Out of scope for the Daniel-Sr. line per the CDV-scope memory, but documented for completeness.
• Tagged [verbatim] for the title-page transcription, Stillwell's dating-argument transcription, the column headers, and all five Cooper-Coper-Coupir entries (which are clearly legible at this scan resolution). Other Staten Island residents are partially transcribed where adjacent to Cooper entries; full-census transcription is deferred as not Cooper-relevant.

Open questions / follow-up

• ~~Reconcile Hannah Wiltse with Eliner Coper.~~ RESOLVED 2026-04-26 — wife was Helena Wilkins (m. 7 Apr 1694) = Eliner Coper (1706 census), name-form variant of one person. No further reconciliation work needed.
• Trace the 5 Coper sons' descendants. Benjamin, Francis, John, Joseph, and William Coper of Staten Island ca. 1690s–1700s may appear in 18th-century NY records (marriages, baptisms, militia, deeds). Whether any of them migrated to NJ and could potentially have a son named Daniel born ~1730–1750 (= Sisser's hypothesised "Daniel Jr." from the Staten Island line) is an OPEN question — but these would NOT be our Daniel Sr. (b. 1695, predates the 5 sons' adult years).
• Cross-reference with Sisser's L.13n entries. The 1898 NY Marriage Licenses page has "Cooper, John × Hannah Frost 1702" — possibly = the John Coper of the 1706 census, as an adult, though the 1702 marriage age is implausible if John was a child in 1706. (The earlier-flagged "Cooper, Joseph × Mary Graham 1701" entry was retired 2026-04-26 — a misalignment with the adjacent "Corbett, John, and Mary Graham 1703" row; no Joseph Cooper marriage exists on page 15.) Internal consistency check between refs 14 and 15 — limited to the one John Cooper × Hannah Frost line.
• Whether Daniel Cooper Sr.'s Dutch-heritage hypothesis is strengthened or weakened by the Staten Island Cooper data. The 1706 census's "Coper" surname spelling is consistent with the Dutch "Kuiper" / "Cuyper" form Sisser hypothesises for Daniel's family (per cover-letter ref 16, see L.13p). If the Staten Island Copers are themselves of Dutch-Huguenot heritage, that supports the broader "Daniel was of Dutch heritage" claim — even though this specific Cooper family was ruled out as Daniel's parents.