JESUIT TREASURES - ARE THEY REAL? - Page 149
Welcome guest, is this your first visit?
Member
Discoveries
 
Page 149 of 263 FirstFirst ... 4999139147148149150151159199249 ... LastLast
Results 2,221 to 2,235 of 3941
Like Tree5218Likes

Thread: JESUIT TREASURES - ARE THEY REAL?

« Prev Thread | Next Thread »
  1. #2221
    um
    Nemo me impune lacesset

    Jan 2005
    DAKOTA TERRITORY
    Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
    7,597
    8776 times
    Springfield wrote
    It had to be a mistake. <snip>
    Thank you Springfield, and actually I agree with your conclusion that it was a mistake; I would propose that the mistake was due to the known connections of Jesuits and mining in AZ, leading to the assumption about Mina de Tierra. However my repeated question, three tries, was not directed at you, as you had already answered my question posted to you. Cactusjumper had posted this comment, after I had asked your opinion about that extract:

    Roy

    Let's face it.....When it comes to treasure hunting stories, the Jesuits are just way more sexy than the Franciscans.
    So I asked him,
    Are you contending that the governor of New Mexico, wrote "Jesuits" in his report, because the Jesuits are "more sexy"? Thanks in advance,
    and he replied with,

    Hi Roy,

    Which governor are you referring to?
    so I gave it another try and answered HIS question,
    Gov George Curry.
    Now to answer my question? I asked because the governor's report, had NOTHING to do with any lost treasure or lost mine. Were you suggesting that he wrote Jesuits, because they would be 'more sexy' as it relates to lost treasures?


    This got NO response, so I had posted,
    I guess I don't get an answer this time.

    A side point here but the Jesuits were intriguing in NM, especially in the early part of the 17th century; at least two 'entradas' and an unknown amount of 'string pulling' in high places to try to get the Moqui and their region assigned to their Order and taken away from the Franciscans. I am aware that virtually all records of NM prior to 1680 were lost.

    Quinoa wrote
    Maybe the stuff was already mined and the Jesuits didn't need to mine anything.
    Then we are left wondering WHO did the mining?

    Quinoa also wrote
    Maybe the Native Americans lead them to some of it.
    There is clear evidence that it was the Pimas themselves whom showed some mineral deposits (which became mines) to the padres, as in the case of La Esmeralda.

    Quinoa also wrote
    Maybe all they had to do was re-hide it or cover it up and re-mark it in some holy way agreeing with the bible... After all, they weren't really miners. They were preachers of Christianity. And you aren't supposed to lust for or love the things that are in this world (such as gold and silver). Maybe that was something which they thought was better to keep from humanity if you want people to serve the Lord. (from 1 John 2 :15-17)
    Big "maybe's" huh?
    Interesting speculation, however the record won't support it. The Jesuits, like most of the Orders of priests (and even nuns) became involved in virtually every type of commerce that existed in the colonial period. In many cases, this was well known to the Royal authorities, and special exemptions/permissions were obtained, always with the purpose of generating income to support the missions and colleges run by the Jesuits. The Royal govt was even paying supplementary money to support the padres and missions, which was supposed to be for a set period of time, usually ten years, at the end of which the missions were supposed to be self-supporting; however in most cases the padres managed to keep extending those tax-free exemptions for repeated periods of ten additional years several times over. The Royal authorities were quite willing, even happy to look the other way even though mining was specifically illegal for priests, because these missions were performing a very handy service for the Royal government by keeping the Indians "pacified" - at peace, at which the missionaries were pretty successful. They were not 100% successful, there were a whole string of revolts against them by the Indians of course, but by and large, they helped keep things quiet so the Royal govt let them run mines, mills, sugar refineries, even retail stores and banking.

    Strangely, while the Jesuits and their defenders do not deny that they (Jesuits) WERE involved in every other kind of commercial activity from sugar plantations to the slave trade (some do deny this ugly part as well) they DO deny any involvement in mining, nor the amassing of treasure which would certainly have resulted from their numerous business operations. Most usually, the personal vow of poverty taken by Jesuits is pointed to as "proof" that they did not amass treasure, which vow has nothing to do with it as ALL of the business concerns were always in the names of the colleges, the missions, the Order etc and NOT in the personal names of priests. The Order, nor any of the colleges and missions, had NO vow of poverty whatsoever.

    I would suggest to anyone interested, to read through this thread from the beginning, as we have covered pretty much all of this before.

    Good luck and good hunting, I guess that Joe has forgot and I am not going to keep trying to get an explanation for his earlier remark. I can see that it was another offhand attempt to ridicule the idea of Jesuits mining.
    Oroblanco
    SUPPORT THE BEEF INDUSTRY - EAT BEEF
    "We must find a way, or we will make one."--Hannibal Barca

  2. #2222

    Jan 2014
    1,899
    3538 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Springfield View Post
    It had to be a mistake. Otherwise, the Jesuits would have had to have been 1) openly operating a mine within a few miles of Santa Fe, a Spanish capital and Franciscan stronghold,
    This is not as far-fetched as it seems, see below.

    You know for a fact that the mine was "just a few miles" from Santa Fe?

    Also,

    Quote Originally Posted by Springfield View Post
    and 2) active there at least a decade prior to Kino's initial foray into Arizona.
    The Jesuits and Franciscans were already clashing over territory in Nueva Vizcaya which is just south of Santa Fe, as early as 1590. The Franciscans wanted to prevent Jesuit encroachment into their territory, but in 1597 the king decreed that anyone speaking the native language could enter into new territory.

    It got much worse after that- requiring a summit in Arizpe, in May of 1651, between the Jesuits and Franciscans, to find common ground and to divide their territory, the Jesuits to stay west of the headwaters of the Bavispe, and the Francisans to the East.

    This agreement failed to end the friction. (Polzer, 1991; 259).

    So it is not altogether out of the question that the Jesuits would be found mining "just a few miles away" from Sante Fe.

  3. #2223
    pw
    Apr 2003
    New Mexico
    BS
    2,850
    1343 times
    Quote Originally Posted by deducer View Post
    ... You know for a fact that the mine was "just a few miles" from Santa Fe?
    I don't know for a fact that the mine existed, but if it did, it was probably near Cerrillos, 20 miles southwest of Santa Fe, where the Spanish may have mined lead in the 1600's.

    ... The Jesuits and Franciscans were already clashing over territory in Nueva Vizcaya which is just south of Santa Fe, as early as 1590. The Franciscans wanted to prevent Jesuit encroachment into their territory, but in 1597 the king decreed that anyone speaking the native language could enter into new territory.

    It got much worse after that- requiring a summit in Arizpe, in May of 1651, between the Jesuits and Franciscans, to find common ground and to divide their territory, the Jesuits to stay west of the headwaters of the Bavispe, and the Francisans to the East.

    This agreement failed to end the friction. (Polzer, 1991; 259).

    So it is not altogether out of the question that the Jesuits would be found mining "just a few miles away" from Sante Fe.
    Nueva Vizcaya was the Mexican region that includes today's states of Durango and Chihuahua. This is not New Mexico. The Jesuits occupied no territory in New Mexico until the 1800's. Yes, it is out of the question that the Jesuits were mining near Santa Fe.
    ​Adios, amigos - it's been interesting.







  4. #2224
    um
    Nemo me impune lacesset

    Jan 2005
    DAKOTA TERRITORY
    Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
    7,597
    8776 times
    Springfield wrote
    <snip> ...where the Spanish may have mined lead in the 1600's.
    Just a coincidence, but since you mentioned the lead mining - I was just reading of what is listed as the "earliest" mining of LEAD in AZ, <supposedly> in Pima county in 1650. I have not found any other details than what I just wrote, except that it was listed as Jesuit, rather than Spanish specifically. This same short statement and variations are found in a string of older publications, not one of which has any details beyond what is posted. Who/whom was in Pima county in 1650, mining lead, of all things? Where was this mine or mines? If anyone has any details on this I would like to hear it, thanks in advance.

    Roy
    SUPPORT THE BEEF INDUSTRY - EAT BEEF
    "We must find a way, or we will make one."--Hannibal Barca

  5. #2225

    Jan 2014
    1,899
    3538 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Springfield View Post
    Nueva Vizcaya was the Mexican region that includes today's states of Durango and Chihuahua. This is not New Mexico.
    It still is just south of the New Mexico territory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Springfield View Post
    The Jesuits occupied no territory in New Mexico until the 1800's. Yes, it is out of the question that the Jesuits were mining near Santa Fe.
    Says who? Are you able to conclusively demonstrate that the Jesuits were not anywhere near New Mexico despite the fact that the Franciscans were complaining about infringement upon their territory? There is no reason to assume they stopped with the Vizcaya territory.

    And as I pointed out, they were already clashing as early as 1590, which is almost a hundred years prior to Kino starting his career in the Pimeria Alta in 1687.

    Why is it out of the question that the Jesuits would mine anywhere near Santa Fe?
    Oroblanco likes this.

  6. #2226
    pw
    Apr 2003
    New Mexico
    BS
    2,850
    1343 times
    Quote Originally Posted by deducer View Post
    It still is just south of the New Mexico territory.
    South, yes - but 300 miles, at the closest point, from Santa Fe.

    Says who? Are you able to conclusively demonstrate that the Jesuits were not anywhere near New Mexico despite the fact that the Franciscans were complaining about infringement upon their territory? There is no reason to assume they stopped with the Vizcaya territory.

    And as I pointed out, they were already clashing as early as 1590, which is almost a hundred years prior to Kino starting his career in the Pimeria Alta in 1687.

    Why is it out of the question that the Jesuits would mine anywhere near Santa Fe?
    The focus of this blind alley is Santa Fe, in New Mexico, not Durango or Chihuahua or Sonora in Mexico, or La Paz in Bolivia either, for that matter. Arguing about territorial rights is one thing - occupying territory is another altogether. To my knowledge, there is no record of Jesuits occupying any part of New Mexico prior to the 19th century. Period. By the way, Fayette Jones solicited information from the public for most of the book he published in 1904 about the mining history of New Mexico - the one that mentions the Mina del Tierra legend, and the source of all later references to the mine. His source is uncited.

    Anything is possible, of course, but IMO this particular rumor simply has no legs. You're welcome to demonstrate the 'alleged' New Mexico Jesuit presence near Santa Fe, but you're going to have a tough time of it. Perhaps you can discover evidence that has thus far eluded the world. Good luck. Your time might be better spent trying to run down the rumor that Kino visited the lower Rio Grande vicinity - a more likely and intriguing possibility.
    ​Adios, amigos - it's been interesting.







  7. #2227
    Windrider

    Mar 2014
    593
    767 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    04/18/1527Ignatius was imprisoned for the first time, in Alcala, Spain, where he was studying and conversing with people on spiritual topics.

    11/18/1538 Pope Paul III caused the Governor of Rome to publish the verdict proclaiming the complete innocence of St. Ignatius and his companions of all heresy.

    09/27/1540 At the Palazzo San Marco in Rome, Pope Paul III signed the Bull “Regimini militantis ecclesiae,” establishing the Society of Jesus as a religious order.

    06/05/1546 Paul III, in his Brief Exponi Nobis, empowered the Society to admit coadjutors, both spiritual and temporal.

    12/23/1549 St. Francis Xavier was appointed provincial of the newly-erected Indian Province.

    10/22/1552 Confirmation by Pope Julius III of the "Privileges" of the Society.

    06/09/1553 Manuel da Nobrega was named provincial of the Jesuits in Brazil. He was involved in the foundations of the cities of Salvador, Sao Paolo and Rio de Janeiro.

    11/13/1555 St. Ignatius made St. Francis Borgia Commissioner General of all the provinces in the Iberian Peninsula and of the Indies subject to Spain and Portugal.

    12/03/1563 At the Council of Trent, the Institute of the Society was approved.

    09/28/1566 The death of Pedro Martinez, the first Jesuit to enter the continental United States. He was killed by natives on the island of Tatacuran, Florida.

    07/13/1572 The first band of Jesuit missionaries entered Mexico.

    10/02/1636 St. Isaac Jogues first set foot on the shores of the New World after two stormy months on the ocean.

    07/18/1650 The death of Cristopher Scheiner, a physicist, astronomer and geometer who discovered sun spots independently of Galileo and created one of the first terrestrial telescopes.

    06/14/1670 The death of Francis Annat, confessor of Louis XIV for 16 years. He introduced quinine, then known as "Jesuit's bark" in France and was instrumental in saving Louis XIV's life.

    06/15/1672 Father General Francis Borgia established the Province of Mexico.

    06/16/1675 St. Margaret Mary Alacoque received her great revelation about devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

    10/11/1688 King Louis XIV forbade all correspondence and interchange between the French Jesuits and Father General Thyrsus Gonzalez.

    03/15/1711 The death of Eusebio Francisco Kino, missionary in Lower California and Arizona, noted for his far-ranging exploration and accurate mapmaking.

    09/16/1759 At Lisbon, 133 fathers and brothers of the Society were put on board a vessel to be conveyed as exiles to Civita Vecchia.

    11/21/1759 At Livorno, the harbor officials refused to let the ship, S. Bonaventura with 120 exiled Portugese Jesuits on board, cast anchor. Carvalho sent orders to the Governor of Rio de Janeiro to make a diligent search for the supposed wealth of the Jesuits.

    08/05/1762 The Parliament at Paris condemned the Society’s Institute as opposed to natural law, confiscated all Jesuit property and forbade the Jesuit habit and community life.

    03/11/1767 At Madrid Fathers Thomas de Lorrain and Bernard Recio, leaving for the Provincial Congregation in Rome, received a sealed parcel said to come from the nuncio. They were requested to take it to someone in Rome. It contained a letter forged by de Choiseul and de Aranda, the prime ministers of France and Spain, and purporting to come from Fther General Ricci alleging Charles II to be illegitimate. Both priests were arrested on their journey and brought back prisoners to Madrid. The forged document was shown to the king, whose previous affection for the Society turned into most bitter hatred.

    04/03/1767 St. Joseph Pignatelli was expelled from Spain along with all other Jesuits there. He began his career of holding together the suppressed Society at age 30, and once again saw the Society permitted to accept novices when he was 57 years old, but he did not live to see its restoration in 1814.

    11/08/1769 In Spain, Charles III ordered all of the Society's goods to be sold, and sent a peremptory demand to the newly-elected Pope Clement XIV to have the Society suppressed.

    02/10/1773 A copy of the proposed Brief of Suppression of the Society of Jesus, drawn up by Monino (Florida Blanca), the Spanish Ambassador, and revised by Cardinal Zelada, was sent with Pope Clement XIV's leave, given reluctantly, to Charles III of Spain, to be communicated by him to the Courts of France, Austria, Portugal and Naples.

    07/21/1773 Pope Clement XIV issued “Dominus ac Redemptor”, an Apostolic Brief, suppressing the Society of Jesus.
    http://www.goajesuits.in/jesuits/history.htm

    6/24/1767 the Viceroy of New Spain opened the royal decree that read "All Jesuits to be rounded up and taken to Veracruz then embarked for Rome. If there is found in that district only one Jesuit, although sick or dying, you will suffer the punishment of death. I, The King."
    Last edited by sailaway; Jun 03, 2014 at 02:52 PM.

  8. #2228
    um
    Nemo me impune lacesset

    Jan 2005
    DAKOTA TERRITORY
    Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
    7,597
    8776 times
    Sailaway - some interesting points on the timelines on that Goa Jesuits site you posted; note that they (Jesuits) are proud of their "secret Jesuits" including several notable FEMALE ones, and the mention about the Jesuits working with the miners in Japan, which was one of the troubles that arose with the Emperor and them. All a part of the pattern of behavior by this Order of militant priests and lay brothers, speaking as a "prosecutor" here.

    Oroblanco
    SUPPORT THE BEEF INDUSTRY - EAT BEEF
    "We must find a way, or we will make one."--Hannibal Barca

  9. #2229

    Jan 2014
    1,899
    3538 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Springfield View Post
    South, yes - but 300 miles, at the closest point, from Santa Fe.
    300 miles? From Santa Fe to where?

    Quote Originally Posted by Springfield View Post
    The focus of this blind alley is Santa Fe, in New Mexico, not Durango or Chihuahua or Sonora in Mexico, or La Paz in Bolivia either, for that matter. Arguing about territorial rights is one thing - occupying territory is another altogether.
    Then why were the Franciscans complaining about Jesuit infringement upon their territory? That's a little different than arguing for territorial rights. Also this infringement wasn't a minor issue, it was a rampant, and often bitter issue between both sides.


    Quote Originally Posted by Springfield View Post
    To my knowledge, there is no record of Jesuits occupying any part of New Mexico prior to the 19th century.
    I don't think the question was one of occupation but if they had made any such entrada into what is today known as New Mexico. Knowing their missionary zeal and ability to cover distances, I wouldn't put it past them.

  10. #2230
    pw
    Apr 2003
    New Mexico
    BS
    2,850
    1343 times
    Quote Originally Posted by deducer View Post
    300 miles? From Santa Fe to where?
    It's 300 miles, more or less as the crow flies, from Santa Fe, NM, south to the far northern border of Nueva Vizcaya. This is the area that was disputed that you referred to in post # 2223. The Bavispe River in northern Mexico was their agreed dividing line.

    Then why were the Franciscans complaining about Jesuit infringement upon their territory? That's a little different than arguing for territorial rights. Also this infringement wasn't a minor issue, it was a rampant, and often bitter issue between both sides.
    Mexico, not New Mexico,

    I don't think the question was one of occupation but if they had made any such entrada into what is today known as New Mexico. Knowing their missionary zeal and ability to cover distances, I wouldn't put it past them.
    Agreed. However, operating a mine as significant as the Mina del Tierra, if it existed, would require time, logistics and lasting memories far beyond that of an entrada. Jesuit entradas are on the table of possibilities; mining operations near Santa Fe, IMO, aren't.
    ​Adios, amigos - it's been interesting.







  11. #2231

    Jan 2014
    1,899
    3538 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Springfield View Post
    It's 300 miles, more or less as the crow flies, from Santa Fe, NM, south to the far northern border of Nueva Vizcaya. This is the area that was disputed that you referred to in post # 2223. The Bavispe River in northern Mexico was their agreed dividing line.
    I am not sure that it was 300 miles to the "border" of Nueva Vizcaya- it was more of an area than a territory with fixed borders. Here is an old map that I found that suggests the area of Nueva Vizcaya reached up to Santa Fe much closer than you may think:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	nuevavizcaya.jpg 
Views:	146 
Size:	607.9 KB 
ID:	1004621

    The headwaters of the Bavispe River was where they agree to stop infringing on each other's territory. As it was, this was a pretty short-liven agreement that didn't end things between either order.

    Quote Originally Posted by Springfield View Post
    Mexico, not New Mexico,
    I believe the area of dispute was the Nueva Vizcaya territory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Springfield View Post
    Agreed. However, operating a mine as significant as the Mina del Tierra, if it existed, would require time, logistics and lasting memories far beyond that of an entrada. Jesuit entradas are on the table of possibilities; mining operations near Santa Fe, IMO, aren't.
    I'm sorry but it's not clear what exactly rules out the possibility of the Jesuits mining anywhere near Santa Fe? I really doubt it would be distance or logistics as the Jesuits have clearly shown they thought nothing of traversing 300, 500, or even 1500 miles as in the example of Kino, Sedelmayer, Keller, & others, who went back and forth between Mexico City and the frontier.

    To use as an example: the Jesuits were not to go north of the Gila river per the King's order, but from Fr. Sedelmayer's journals, Nentvig's maps, etc., we know they went north of it many times. There are also instances which suggest they mined or at least became involved with mining north of the Gila.

    So if they defied the king's orders, it would also follow that they would defy the request of the Franciscans.

  12. #2232
    Windrider

    Mar 2014
    593
    767 times
    All Types Of Treasure Hunting
    The oldest capital in the United States. Santa Fe, New Mexico.http://www.santafenm.gov/
    Santa Fe was the capitol of northern New Spain. It would only make sence that the Jesuits had to go there to do any and all legal work including representing themselves to the Franciscans. This is also where Antonio de Padua María Severino López de Santa Anna y Pérez de Lebrón headed south fleeing the Americans. He had with him the Army payroll in gold. when he was captured in the Mexican American War south of Sante Fe. He did not have the gold or the 5 cannons which was known to be with him when he left town. He owned Paso de Ovejas the end of the trail for the Jesuits missions and the last of their places they saw before being deported, and was sold after the expulsion, which was the Sheep trail for Jesuit Sheep raising.
    http://www.johntoddjr.com/84%20Jesuits/jesuits.htm
    Last edited by sailaway; Jun 04, 2014 at 12:23 PM.

  13. #2233
    pw
    Apr 2003
    New Mexico
    BS
    2,850
    1343 times
    Quote Originally Posted by deducer View Post
    I am not sure that it was 300 miles to the "border" of Nueva Vizcaya- it was more of an area than a territory with fixed borders. Here is an old map that I found that suggests the area of Nueva Vizcaya reached up to Santa Fe much closer than you may think:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	nuevavizcaya.jpg 
Views:	146 
Size:	607.9 KB 
ID:	1004621

    The headwaters of the Bavispe River was where they agree to stop infringing on each other's territory. As it was, this was a pretty short-liven agreement that didn't end things between either order. ... I believe the area of dispute was the Nueva Vizcaya territory
    I've seen similar maps and, technically, they're more broadly painted than the agreed upon limits of Nueva Vizcaya. Per Bandelier, Full text of "Historical documents relating to New Mexico, Nueva Vizcaya, and approaches thereto, to 1773; Spanish texts and English translations" :


    ... "Nueva Vizcaya: a Frontier Province.

    i. The geographical extent of Nueva Vizcaya. In a preceding chapter narrating the expansion of Spain in North America to 1590, a brief account was given of the establishment in 1562 of the new political juris- diction of Nueva Vizcaya and of its limits and development until near the close of the sixteenth century. At the close of the seventeenth cen- tury the so-called kingdom of Nueva Vizcaya still comprised an area imperial in extent. As defined in 1693, the boundary of Nueva Vizcaya began ten or twelve leagues below Durango, the capital, at a point said to be in 24 20' north latitude. Thence it passed in a northeasterly direction, delimiting on the south and east the province of Nueva Galicia, to a point on the western boundary of the kingdom of Nuevo Leon. From there the boundary between Nueva Vizcaya and Nuevo Leon ran in a northerly direction, between Saltillo and the villa of Monterey, capital of Nuevo Leon, to the newly created province of Coahuila, the southern boundary of which in 1674 had been established about twenty leagues north of Saltillo. Thence the boundary between Nueva Vizcaya and Coahuila passed south and west of Monclova and then again turned north and con- tinued to the Rio del Norte. From the point where the boundary reached the Rio del Norte to the presidio of El Paso the kingdom of Nueva Vizcaya stretched to the northeast " to such a longitude " that the boun- dary was " considered to extend as far as the Colbert [Mississippi] River ".

    On the north, Nueva Vizcaya extended " as far as the presidio of El Paso ", described as being " in latitude thirty-two degrees, less one- third ", and from where "the bounds of New Mexico bear towards its capital which is Santa Fe". To the northwest, the kingdom of Nueva Vizcaya extended " as far as latitude thirty-seven degrees and fifteen minutes", or to the New Mexican provinces of Zuni and Moqui. To the west of Nueva Vizcaya proper lay the provinces of Rosario, Sinaloa, and Sonora, the last two of which were administrative subdivisions of Nueva Vizcaya..."
    (Additional sources provided in text.)

    It's a bit of a fragmented agreement, all right: Nueva Vizcaya included, essentially, today's Texas to the northeast, much of today's Arizona to the northwest, but specifically excludes current New Mexico north of El Paso.

    I'm sorry but it's not clear what exactly rules out the possibility of the Jesuits mining anywhere near Santa Fe? I really doubt it would be distance or logistics as the Jesuits have clearly shown they thought nothing of traversing 300, 500, or even 1500 miles as in the example of Kino, Sedelmayer, Keller, & others, who went back and forth between Mexico City and the frontier.

    To use as an example: the Jesuits were not to go north of the Gila river per the King's order, but from Fr. Sedelmayer's journals, Nentvig's maps, etc., we know they went north of it many times. There are also instances which suggest they mined or at least became involved with mining north of the Gila.

    So if they defied the king's orders, it would also follow that they would defy the request of the Franciscans.
    Notwithstanding any clandestine Jesuit entradas to uncontrolled sections of New Mexico - such as the Kino rumors - my contention is that the Jesuits would not just have been disobeying the Crown's decree by occupying land and operating a mine near Santa Fe. They would have been openly defying the Spanish government and their military presence there. Unless some surprising evidence surfaces, I think the possibility is exceedingly thin.
    Last edited by Springfield; Jun 04, 2014 at 05:17 PM. Reason: clarity
    Oroblanco likes this.
    ​Adios, amigos - it's been interesting.







  14. #2234

    Jan 2014
    1,899
    3538 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Springfield View Post
    On the north, Nueva Vizcaya extended " as far as the presidio of El Paso ", described as being " in latitude thirty-two degrees, less one- third ", and from where "the bounds of New Mexico bear towards its capital which is Santa Fe". To the northwest, the kingdom of Nueva Vizcaya extended " as far as latitude thirty-seven degrees and fifteen minutes", or to the New Mexican provinces of Zuni and Moqui. To the west of Nueva Vizcaya proper lay the provinces of Rosario, Sinaloa, and Sonora, the last two of which were administrative subdivisions of Nueva Vizcaya..."[/I] (Additional sources provided in text.)

    It's a bit of a fragmented agreement, all right: Nueva Vizcaya included, essentially, today's Texas to the northeast, much of today's Arizona to the northwest, but specifically excludes current New Mexico north of El Paso.
    Sorry, but this statement:
    To the northwest, the kingdom of Nueva Vizcaya extended "as far as latitude thirty-seven degrees and fifteen minutes", or to the New Mexican provinces of Zuni and Moqui.
    places the northwest reach of the NV right smack in New Mexico and not too far away from Santa Fe. The Zuni people as you know, congregated around the Zuni river and surrounding mountains.


    Quote Originally Posted by Springfield View Post
    Notwithstanding any clandestine Jesuit entradas to uncontrolled sections of New Mexico - such as the Kino rumors - my contention is that the Jesuits would not just have been disobeying the Crown's decree by occupying land and operating a mine near Santa Fe. They would have been openly defying the Spanish government and their military presence there. Unless some surprising evidence surfaces, I think the possibility is exceedingly thin.
    Disobeying? Defying? These Jesuits? No way!
    Oroblanco and sailaway like this.

  15. #2235
    pw
    Apr 2003
    New Mexico
    BS
    2,850
    1343 times
    Quote Originally Posted by deducer View Post
    Sorry, but this statement ...places the northwest reach of the NV right smack in New Mexico and not too far away from Santa Fe. The Zuni people as you know, congregated around the Zuni river and surrounding mountains.
    Well ... yes and no. Prior to the 19th century, Zuni (near today's NM/AZ border, 150 miles west of Santa Fe) always provided a small, sullen and acrimonious flock for the on-again/off-again Franciscan effort there. Technically, you're right - the pueblo was a fringe possibility for the Jesuits. Because of its remoteness and the Franciscans' difficulties there, I suspect the Jesuits simply said, "No thanks."
    Last edited by Springfield; Jun 04, 2014 at 08:22 PM. Reason: added an vfhyiiu
    ​Adios, amigos - it's been interesting.







 

 

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

jesuit silver bar
,

jesuit treasure

,
jesuit treasure snake island
,
jesuits gold in arizona
,
jesuits treasure
,
sacambaya treasure
,
sacambaya treasure fake
,
sacambaya treasure found
,
spanish jesuit treasure symbols
,
treasure of the trinity found
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.3.0