JESUIT TREASURES - ARE THEY REAL?

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

Nethrlandr,

I see. You are trying to use logic with the government. Had much experience dealing with bureaucracies?

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

Yes. Tis how I made most of my living.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[deducer]

Allo mi compadre Oro, May I ask were the coadjutors under any 'obligation' to report their activities to a lowly mission priest??

To them the coadjutors were simply other Spanish miners or whatever they were involved in.

The old "Need to know" factor.

Don Jose de La Mancha

To get back to the topic at hand.

At this point, I think that the idea of the "coadjutors" is relatively overrated when it comes to Jesuits intrigue into mining.

I think that for the most part, and judging by second-hand accounts, when the Jesuits were directly involved, either actually mining, or refining or transporting, they used Indian converts to "help" them.

And when they were indirectly involved in mining, I think they dealt directly with the miners- bartering, for example. They would barter goods for whatever the miners produced.

This is my current working hypothesis.

 

[cactusjumper]

Yes. Tis how I made most of my living.

Which side of the issues?

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Couple of points A-- Regardiig coadjutors, remember most wereJesut trained , and those dedicated to mining were especially so. Wold you trust your profiiable mine to what could be an uneducated Indian, no matter how trusted? An Improperly worked mine can lose the mine quickly.

Under legal language the lost Dutchman mine, it would not be a new onem if had ever been filed under any name, or any time, and could legally be filed upon, It is NOt a new claim, but a refiling and bringing it up to date. ?

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s.

 

[deducer]

Couple of points A-- Regardiig coadjutors, remember most wereJesut trained , and those dedicated to mining were especially so. Wold you trust your profiiable mine to what could be an uneducated Indian, no matter how trusted? An Improperly worked mine can lose the mine quickly.

They would direct the Indians, supervise them. They were obviously very hands-on to the point of instructing the army to whip any recalcitrant workers:

Even then I was not safe from the persecution of the Fathers, because Lieutenant Don Cristóbal Yañez told me, “You must leave here because I have a letter from Father Jacobo Sedelmayr instructing me to give you fifty lashes and banish you from these parts.”

From Pedro de la Cruz, an Indian who ran away from hard labor in the mines, and who was later accused of corroborating in the Pima uprising of 1751.

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

Which side of the issues?

Joe

I'll take "what are the issues" for $300 Alex.

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

They would direct the Indians, supervise them. They were obviously very hands-on to the point of instructing the army to whip any recalcitrant workers:

From Pedro de la Cruz, an Indian who ran away from hard labor in the mines, and who was later accused of corroborating in the Pima uprising of 1751.

If by workers you mean slaves. Are you seriously suggesting the Jesuits enslaved Indians? Or was whipping free men the norm then?

 

[deducer]

If by workers you mean slaves. Are you seriously suggesting the Jesuits enslaved Indians? Or was whipping free men the norm then?

Well, would you think that any free man would submit to being whipped?

Now I am not suggesting that the Jesuits proactively sought to enslave Indians, but they did not stop those of the Indians that refused to convert, from being enslaved.

Furthermore, in that they sought to gather the Indians into reducciones, or special mission settlements which were intended to facilitate evangelization (colonization) of these people, this could then be seen as borderline enslavement because the alternative for those Indians were to either engage in warfare with the Spanish Army, or risk outright slavery.

Inside those reducciones the Jesuits engaged in systematic repression and eradication of the Indian's indigenous beliefs and religion.

 

[Oroblanco]

Hola amigos,


As we have gone over this argument ad nauseum, I won't go too far on it: that said I will raise a couple of points.


One - there is no citizenship requirement for the land-exchange deal. Just have to have land the Feds want, worth as much or more than the land you are trying to get. Not necessarily the same number of acres. Also, a non-citizen can BUY or LEASE a mining claim from a citizen.


Two - despite what people say on the internet, mining inside of Wilderness Areas is legal under that Wilderness Act, however with strict restrictions. The authorities are especially strict/stringent over the Superstitions Wilderness Area because SO many people want to go in and just tear a giant hole in the earth, based on having solved clues, maps etc often of very questionable provenance to begin with. Hence the very high bar they set. I know personally a person whom has an active Treasure Trove permit inside of a wilderness area, kept up to date for several years now, and this is in AZ to boot, plus if memory serves Ron Feldman got permission to dig out an old mine shaft a few years ago. It is NOT IMPOSSIBLE to get the necessary permission, but you have to have VERY SOLID PROOF, and that means documentation, photos etc not just satellite images and solutions for treasure maps.


Three - a mine and ore are not treasure trove, and gold bars are not minerals, they require separate and different legal permissions; the treasure trove law requires that the govt gets half the treasure right off the top, but half of millions is still millions and 100% legal. A mine is a different deal entirely, as is ore, which would be covered under a mining claim. As Cactusjumper Joe posted, the Wilderness Areas have been closed to mineral entry, (meaning you cannot claim a mine inside the wilderness area boundaries) however if you could prove that you had indeed found a valuable mineral deposit, such that would clearly be worth mining it, you do have a legal course to follow to TRY to get a claim on it. I posted one legal argument, that of getting that land withdrawn from the Wilderness Area as all mineralized areas were supposed to be excluded from all Wilderness Areas. Another route one MIGHT try is to simply file your claim with the BLM; they will take your money and file your papers for a mining claim on the Moon, which however does not make it a valid claim.


Sorry for the off-topic bit (again) just that it seems that some folks like to use the excuse that it is "illegal to mine" as the reason why they can not and will not prove they found a lost mine. It CAN BE DONE, legally, but you have to prove your case to the Fed and no amount of argument about solving clues or treasure maps, nor satellite photos will work it has to be a real deposit of gold or silver or platinum or diamonds etc that you can literally take a Ranger to and show it to them in person. It HAS BEEN DONE - even inside of supposedly off-limits military bases! People forget that the govt stands to reap a fat profit at the discovery and recovery of lost treasures, and even royalties on mines too.


Don Jose de la Mancha wrote

Under legal language the lost Dutchman mine, it would not be a new onem if had ever been filed under any name, or any time, and could legally be filed upon, It is NOt a new claim, but a refiling and bringing it up to date. ?

No salt this time amigo - the Dutchman never filed any claim on his mine. If it were an old Spanish mine there might be legal title back there somewhere, however this seems doubtful in light of the facts, and if it were a Jesuit mine, any paperwork has almost certainly been taken by earlier treasure hunters and we may never see them again.


ConceptualizedNetherlandr wrote

If by workers you mean slaves. Are you seriously suggesting the Jesuits enslaved Indians? Or was whipping free men the norm then?

We might get caught up in a word definition here amigo - the Mission Indians were not exactly legally "slaves" however they were NOT free, could not leave the mission without permission of the padres for instance, and DID have forced labor as most peons of Mexico also did, which was three days per week. At least that was the rule, however there is evidence the three days rule was widely ignored. The Jesuits DID introduce actual slaves from Africa into Sonora too, as they found the Indians did not live too long working in the mines. The thing is that the Indians had a legal standing similar to that of minor children today, with the padres as the "legal guardians" in charge of them. And whipping was one of the main forms of corporal punishment used on the Indians, along with the stocks. Whipping was not that un-common as a legal punishment for minor crimes in that time. So in a sense you could argue that the Mission Indians were indeed "slaves" being that they were not free and had to do forced labor, and yet you could also argue that they were NOT slaves, as they could not be bought and sold as true slaves were, and for three days of each week they were "free" to do their own work, which would be most unusual for slaves of that time.


Sorry for the long-winded and partially off-topic post,
Oroblanco

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

Well, would you think that any free man would submit to being whipped?

Now I am not suggesting that the Jesuits proactively sought to enslave Indians, but they did not stop those of the Indians that refused to convert, from being enslaved.

Furthermore, in that they sought to gather the Indians into reducciones, or special mission settlements which were intended to facilitate evangelization (colonization) of these people, this could then be seen as borderline enslavement because the alternative for those Indians were to either engage in warfare with the Spanish Army, or risk outright slavery.

Inside those reducciones the Jesuits engaged in systematic repression and eradication of the Indian's indigenous beliefs and religion.

At what date do you claim Indians were subjected to Jesuits as slaves, ya know, for instance

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

snip...
ConceptualizedNetherlandr wrote

We might get caught up in a word definition here amigo - the Mission Indians were not exactly legally "slaves" however they were NOT free, could not leave the mission without permission of the padres for instance, and DID have forced labor as most peons of Mexico also did, which was three days per week. At least that was the rule, however there is evidence the three days rule was widely ignored. The Jesuits DID introduce actual slaves from Africa into Sonora too, as they found the Indians did not live too long working in the mines. The thing is that the Indians had a legal standing similar to that of minor children today, with the padres as the "legal guardians" in charge of them. And whipping was one of the main forms of corporal punishment used on the Indians, along with the stocks. Whipping was not that un-common as a legal punishment for minor crimes in that time. So in a sense you could argue that the Mission Indians were indeed "slaves" being that they were not free and had to do forced labor, and yet you could also argue that they were NOT slaves, as they could not be bought and sold as true slaves were, and for three days of each week they were "free" to do their own work, which would be most unusual for slaves of that time.

Sorry for the long-winded and partially off-topic post,
Oroblanco

I'd need to see a whole lotta paperwork before I'd swallow that

 

[Oroblanco]

I'd need to see a whole lotta paperwork before I'd swallow that

By all means, do not take MY word on it; look up "reduccion" and "congregaccion" which is the Spanish terms for the Mission system; also check out "encomiendo" and "repartimento" which are Spanish laws for forced labor, outside of Missions which have not been secularized.

If you would like to get it in ONE book, I would suggest this one:
Salvation Through Slavery: Chiricahua Apaches and Priests on the Spanish Colonial Frontier by H. Henrietta Stockel

How did you think the Missions actually worked? Why do you suppose the Indians rose in revolt against them, not just once but repeatedly over the centuries, and there were cases of the Indians running away from the Missions wholesale, only to be hunted down by soldiers and "trusted" Indian allies, even using dogs to run them down. The Mission system aka "reducions" was rather brutal amigo, not quite the heavenly gardens that some modern revisionists have been trying to paint them.

I do not have unlimited internet time or I might pull up some of that extensive paperwork you wish to see for you, but just look into it on your own, and if you can show me where I have it wrong I would love to see it. Not being sarcastic in saying that, I would like to see contrary evidence to what I have seen.

Oroblanco

 

[deducer]

How did you think the Missions actually worked? Why do you suppose the Indians rose in revolt against them, not just once but repeatedly over the centuries, and there were cases of the Indians running away from the Missions wholesale, only to be hunted down by soldiers and "trusted" Indian allies, even using dogs to run them down. The Mission system aka "reducions" was rather brutal amigo, not quite the heavenly gardens that some modern revisionists have been trying to paint them.

This is reinforced by the study done in The Sonoran Missions and Indian Raids of the Eighteenth Century by Maria Soledad Arbelaez, from the Journal of the Southwest, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Autumn, 1991), pp. 366-386, whereas:

An outstanding feature of these [missions] reports is the constant complaint raised by the Jesuits that the main reason for the Indian attacks was to pillage the missions' property, and that the principal spoils of the Indian incursions were cattle and horses. The rest of the mission's property apparently remained untouched, or so it seems from the Jesuit records, which also suggest that, occasionally, total destruction occurred from these Indian raids. Despite such claims, however, total destruction was rarely the case since the Indians attacked symbols of domination: church buildings, crosses, and saints' images.

 

[releventchair]

I'd need to see a whole lotta paperwork before I'd swallow that

You write as if a British subject accepting a yoke of monarchy as the norm and proper while denying being subjugated.
There is plenty of paper work to research if you do your homework. . After you review it present your documentation of the Jesuits labor force, its source, and retention thereof to argue it was a high tea scenario. Here are a couple "free" hints.

Indians 101: Jesuit Missionaries in Arizona

The Indians of the Missions

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Oro of the infamous sock coffee, you posted-->the Dutchman never filed any claim on his mine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I was fully aware of that but used it for my point, I had rather hoped that you would have your mind on the sheep and miss it sigh.

Don Jose de La Mancha




















````````

 

[sailaway]

THE "SPEAR OF DESTINY" THE MYSTERIOUS ANCIENT SPEARHEAD
The very Spear used to kill Abel was kept between the Temple and the Altar. Only priests and their fellow Levites were allowed in this space, and then only during the performance of their official duties. The only weapon known to have been left in this precise location was the ritual Spear that served as the symbol of authority of the Captain of the Temple, who was second only to the High Priest himself.
Where is the spear of destiny? Here is a clue.
"Joseph arranged the escape of the family and friends of Jesus. They became a tiny band of exiles, who cast away in an oar-less, rudder-less boat, with little provision, and were left to the mercy of the tempests. In this vessel was some of Jesus? The most beloved: His uncle and life-long guardian, the well-reputed Joseph of Arimathea, the-Nobilis Decurio, honorable merchant for Jerusalem and Rome. There was Jesus? Treasured mother, Mary, his beloved ladies, Mary Magdalene, and the Bethany sisters, Mary and Martha, and Salome. There was the Apostle Phillip. And there were others: fourteen in all. When this little vessel had miraculously been carried across the Great Mediterranean Sea, it ground ashore on the coasts of Gaul"
Is this spot Corpus Christi, Texas? Corpus Christi = Body of Christ

Hitler was searching for the spear of destiny but never found it. he posed for this picture as if he had the real one in his right hand and having the other in his left hand. He had found out that the one he had was a fake and demanded of his SS to find it.
Did the Jesuit Priest who were killed coming from the Concepcion Mine have it with them when the Apache killed them? Or were they searching for it following the clues?

William Henry
SPEAR OF DESTINY
4. Spear of Destiny - Mystic Order of Noble Knowledge

Pinal County will not let you file a "Location" of minerals in the Superstition District. It requires that first filing to get to the Federal level.

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

By all means, do not take MY word on it; look up "reduccion" and "congregaccion" which is the Spanish terms for the Mission system; also check out "encomiendo" and "repartimento" which are Spanish laws for forced labor, outside of Missions which have not been secularized.

If you would like to get it in ONE book, I would suggest this one:
Salvation Through Slavery: Chiricahua Apaches and Priests on the Spanish Colonial Frontier by H. Henrietta Stockel

How did you think the Missions actually worked? Why do you suppose the Indians rose in revolt against them, not just once but repeatedly over the centuries, and there were cases of the Indians running away from the Missions wholesale, only to be hunted down by soldiers and "trusted" Indian allies, even using dogs to run them down. The Mission system aka "reducions" was rather brutal amigo, not quite the heavenly gardens that some modern revisionists have been trying to paint them.

I do not have unlimited internet time or I might pull up some of that extensive paperwork you wish to see for you, but just look into it on your own, and if you can show me where I have it wrong I would love to see it. Not being sarcastic in saying that, I would like to see contrary evidence to what I have seen.

Oroblanco

You make a compelling statement, as do others. So as history is written, under the colour of the goodness of christ the jesuits conquered and enslaved the natives taking their riches, for their own good. Such a wonderful sect of humanity.

 

[cactusjumper]

Concept.

I doubt the history is all one way......nor the other. The truth may very well lie somewhere between. Stories, even those in letters or newspapers of the day, are not necessarily the "facts".

Take care,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[deducer]

Concept.

I doubt the history is all one way......nor the other. The truth may very well lie somewhere between. Stories, even those in letters or newspapers of the day, are not necessarily the "facts".

Take care,

Joe Ribaudo

So are you saying the Jesuits did not come over to proselytize? What then were they doing here?

 

[cactusjumper]

So are you saying the Jesuits did not come over to proselytize? What then were they doing here?

deducer,

Don't believe I said any such thing. "The truth may very well lie somewhere between". May is the operative word. In truth, I believe that to be the case with many stories of the Jesuit's. As far a proselytizing goes, they did a better job than any of the Orders.

It's difficult to judge that era looking through the lens of 2014, although many still try. Things were a bit more basic back in those days. What the Jesuits did was considered the norm for treating with the Indians. When you consider that Father Kino, as well as many other missionaries, beat themselves until they bled, harsh punishment for some of the natives may be a little easier to understand.

The priests called the natives their children. The majority of the natives considered the priests as fathers. They were living in very stern times.

I would suggest you read: "Why Have You Come Here?: The Jesuits and the First Evangelization of Native America" by Nicholas Cushner.

Joe