What's new
By:

James Addison Reavis would be proud

Lucky Baldwin

Lucky Baldwin

Full Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
132
Reaction score
310
Golden Thread
0
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Stumbled across this tonight. Is from early 1941.

JAR1.webp
JAR2.webp

I thought the torn-off sleeve made into a sack was a nice touch. Wonder if his grandson is one of the posters here on T-net?
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!
Reavis , Williams and the guy who found the leather bags filled with gold at the Massacre Grounds stories , are just examples of how the US Gov acts when its interests are challenged . For this reason , many mines were worked in secret and some caches have changed their place in secret too . Too greedy laws for the prospecting/treasure hunting room .
 

markmar said:
Reavis , Williams and the guy who found the leather bags filled with gold at the Massacre Grounds stories , are just examples of how the US Gov acts when its interests are challenged . For this reason , many mines were worked in secret and some caches have changed their place in secret too . Too greedy laws for the prospecting/treasure hunting room .
Click to expand...

Mr. Markmar

I don't know enough about Williams or the massacre gold guy to voice an educated opinion, but James Addison Reavis was a total scam artist in the spirit of the TV show "American Greed." This is a fact not an opinion. He gave an interview from prison a few years after the trial, admitted to it and recounted his whole life as a forger. As I recall he began in the army forging 3 day passes.

In a nutshell Reavis concocted 2 cases against the U.S. Gov't claiming ownership of an old Spanish land grant called the "Peralta Grant" in central Arizona.

In his 1st case, in the early 1880's, he claimed he bought the grant. When that case fell apart about 1885, he retreated to California and concocted his 2nd case. This one made the rounds in the early 1890's. In it he said he met and married the last living decendant of the Peralta clan and claimed the grant on that basis. After some delays in May, the trial finally started in June, 1895.

In that trial, the gov't lawyers proved the "Peralta" grant papers were forgeries inserted into the archive records at Guadalajara. The original record was a bound volume, but the pages concerning the Peralta grant had been carefully glued into the book and were of a slightly different size and type paper than all the others. One newspaper man who carefully examined the originals even stated that he had found the watermark from a Wisconsin paper mill on one of them. Also, in the archives in Mexico City, in the location where mention of the Peralta grant should have been, no mention was made of it. In the trial it was brought up how Reavis tried to access the archives at Mexico City but was refused.

The gov't also proved pages had been inserted into the archive records at Seville, Spain, in an effort to establish Reavis' wife's geneology. Other red flags were the spelling and grammatical errors found in the originals. Such errors were NEVER made in Royal Court documents. Also it was determined they had been written with a steel nibbed pen which wasn't in use until long after the document dates. They should have been written with a quill.

These facts can be verified in the numerous newspaper articles on the subject written while the trial was progressing. Won't help you find a lost mine, but I still found them interesting reading.

Just trying to set the record straight.
 

Last edited:
LB

If you don't know , the Gov lawyers can prove everything they want , even how you are from another planet . So , don't bother to find the truth reading Gov and Gov lawyers reports . Nor " gov lick " newspapers reports . The truth is different and is hidden behind the logic and history .

Only a mad man would used fake documents against Gov interest . Was Reavis insane ? I don't think so .
 

Last edited:
markmar said:
LB

If you don't know , the Gov lawyers can prove everything they want , even how you are from another planet . So , don't bother to find the truth reading Gov and Gov lawyers reports . Nor " gov lick " newspapers reports . The truth is different and is hidden behind the logic and history .

Only a mad man would used fake documents against Gov interest . Was Reavis insane ? I don't think so .
Click to expand...

Marius,

What you say could, of course, be true. It is also possible it's false.

I will chose to go with the historical record of the known facts.

Take care,

Joe
 

cactusjumper said:
Marius,

What you say could, of course, be true. It is also possible it's false.

I will chose to go with the historical record of the known facts.

Take care,

Joe
Click to expand...

Everybody is free to chose what believe to be the truth .

Another thing that you could think , is how if hadn't existed a document of Peralta ownership on the Superstitions gold mines , then any Spanish/Mexican peon or experienced miner who worked for the Peraltas , could claim the mines on his name before 1847 .
 

markmar said:
Everybody is free to chose what believe to be the truth .

Another thing that you could think , is how if hadn't existed a document of Peralta ownership on the Superstitions gold mines , then any Spanish/Mexican peon or experienced miner who worked for the Peraltas , could claim the mines on his name before 1847 .
Click to expand...

Excuse me Mr. Markmar, I beg to differ.

According to Spanish law NO minerals were ever included in land grants, Mineral land was always considered Crown property. That's why you had to pay the king his "Royal fifth" for permission to work it.

It was the U.S. gov't that included minerals in the old Spanish land grants, but that only occured on this side of the border after the Hidalgo treaty of 1848. So there's no way a "Peralta" peon, or even old Miguel Peralta himself could've claimed the mine. Work it, yes. Claim it, no.
 

Lucky Baldwin said:
Excuse me Mr. Markmar, I beg to differ.

According to Spanish law NO minerals were ever included in land grants, Mineral land was always considered Crown property. That's why you had to pay the king his "Royal fifth" for permission to work it.

It was the U.S. gov't that included minerals in the old Spanish land grants, but that only occured on this side of the border after the Hidalgo treaty of 1848. So there's no way a "Peralta" peon, or even old Miguel Peralta himself could've claimed the mine. Work it, yes. Claim it, no.
Click to expand...

I believe in the Peralta land grant region was never recorded a mine before the king give it to the Peraltas . So , the land grant was legal , but in a spirit of conspiracy , the king gave the land grant to miners with the purpose to find a lost in time trasure ( mines and cache ) .

IMO , long before the land grant , there was Spanish-Franciscan gold mine workings , workings which were occured in some way legally , with the " fifth " and the church shares stashed separately , but nobody survived to reveal the exact place in regards to be recorded .
All those workings remained lost for the king , and the fact faded and became story and the story became legend , the legend of Santa Fe treasure .
 

Last edited:
markmar,

From the Yavapai County Recorders Book 1 and 2 for the years 1864 - 1865 here are recordings of deed transfers from the original miners (Mexicans) to mostly Americans.

The dates of the transfers and name of the mines are listed.

The Valencia is the mine that Miguel Peralta refiled on July 17, 1877 and took out 10-20 tons of ore which paid $100 per ton.
According to a mining report in the Mining and Scientific Press May 1879, Henry A. Bigelow stated, " the Valencia mine in the Black Canyon District is one of the most desirable gold mines yet discovered in Yavapai County."

Yavapai Co. Records Book 1.webp
 

Last edited:
Turns out the above was just a reprint of the original M&S Press article...here's the original in case anyone's interested.
Last time I was there (at the Valenciana) it looked like it was still being mined, or at least prospected. Location: 34.15389N -112.15750

View attachment 1598983
 

Matthew Roberts said:
markmar,

From the Yavapai County Recorders Book 1 and 2 for the years 1864 - 1865 here are recordings of deed transfers from the original miners (Mexicans) to mostly Americans.

The dates of the transfers and name of the mines are listed.

The Valencia is the mine that Miguel Peralta refiled on July 17, 1877 and took out 10-20 tons of ore which paid $100 per ton.
According to a mining report in the Mining and Scientific Press May 1879, Henry A. Bigelow stated, " the Valencia mine in the Black Canyon District is one of the most desirable gold mines yet discovered in Yavapai County."

View attachment 1598854
Click to expand...

Hi Matthew

From what i read , the deeds were made for mines of $100 per ton or less , maybe after they took all the " cream " from them . I don't know the prices they made the deeds to can compare for a mine which could " give " about $4000 per ton in 1877 .
The LDM at the lowest value ( left aside the Joe Porterie assay ) estimated by Edgar Cayce in 1944 , was at $6000 per ton , so the same value in 1877 would been at about $4000 per ton .
With $100 in 1877 someone could buy about 4,5 troy oz of gold , so this would been the production of the Valencia mine per ton .

Why you believe the Peraltas didn't sale the LDM and other mines from the Superstitions ? Maybe because the only title they had was the land grant and was too big to '' pass " as a legal title for the US gov . Maybe if the Peraltas would tried to sale in 1865, then the case would been similar to the Reavis case in 1890 .
 

Last edited:
markmar said:
Hi Matthew

From what i read , the deeds were made for mines of $100 per ton or less , maybe after they took all the " cream " from them . I don't know the prices they made the deeds to can compare for a mine which could " give " about $4000 per ton in 1877 .
The LDM at the lowest value ( left aside the Joe Porterie assay ) estimated by Edgar Cayce in 1944 , was at $6000 per ton , so the same value in 1877 would been at about $4000 per ton .
With $100 in 1877 someone could buy about 4,5 troy oz of gold , so this would been the production of the Valencia mine per ton .

Why you believe the Peraltas didn't sale the LDM and other mines from the Superstitions ? Maybe because the only title they had was the land grant and was too big to '' pass " as a legal title for the US gov . Maybe if the Peraltas would tried to sale in 1865, then the case would been similar to the Reavis case in 1890 .
Click to expand...

Hi Marius,

I know your question was for Matthew, but I'd like to pitch you my two cents... that the Peraltas never sold the LDM and other Superstition mines because the AZ Peralta land grant was fake. Our Miguel Peralta in AZ testified to this in his deposition. The Peraltas never sold them because they never owned them.

There never was ANY impediment to our Miguel Peralta (the owner of the Valenciana mine and various stores in AZ) to claiming a mine anywhere in AZ. I think that's what Matthew was pointing out...It appears that Miguel Peralta was a U.S. Citizen prior to his coming to AZ (he ran for office on the Democratic ticket in AZ, so he must have had some kind of citizenship documentation). So, even if the Peralta Land Grant in AZ was fake, AND IT WAS, he still could have claimed any mine in the Superstitions ANYWAY. We must ask ourselves, then, why didn't Miguel Peralta lay claim to any mines in the Superstition region?

When people say the Peraltas couldn't claim mines in AZ, I think they're referring to certain mining district charters...for example the Pioneer and Walker districts excluded Mexicans, for example, from filing claims. This seems overtly racist, and maybe it was, but when there's a gold rush going on, it's every man for himself...so a good way to get the best and most numerous groups of workers (Mexican and Chinese nationals) to settle down and work en masse for claim owners, was to prevent them from filing their own claims...there was a hodge-podge system in place regarding mining laws until 1872...at that time it was codified that only US citizens or people who have declared their intent to become one, could file mining claims on public land...this was AFTER the Peraltas and their partners had already claimed the Valenciana in 1864...people think the Peraltas mined in the Black Canyon District because they weren't allowed to mine in the Pioneer or Walker...I think Miguel could have mined anywhere he wanted because I believe he was a US citizen...I think they mined at the Valenciana quite simply because that's where they found gold.

Best regards, Jim
 

PotBelly Jim said:
Hi Marius,

I know your question was for Matthew, but I'd like to pitch you my two cents... that the Peraltas never sold the LDM and other Superstition mines because the AZ Peralta land grant was fake. Our Miguel Peralta in AZ testified to this in his deposition. The Peraltas never sold them because they never owned them.

There never was ANY impediment to our Miguel Peralta (the owner of the Valenciana mine and various stores in AZ) to claiming a mine anywhere in AZ. I think that's what Matthew was pointing out...It appears that Miguel Peralta was a U.S. Citizen prior to his coming to AZ (he ran for office on the Democratic ticket in AZ, so he must have had some kind of citizenship documentation). So, even if the Peralta Land Grant in AZ was fake, AND IT WAS, he still could have claimed any mine in the Superstitions ANYWAY. We must ask ourselves, then, why didn't Miguel Peralta lay claim to any mines in the Superstition region?

When people say the Peraltas couldn't claim mines in AZ, I think they're referring to certain mining district charters...for example the Pioneer and Walker districts excluded Mexicans, for example, from filing claims. This seems overtly racist, and maybe it was, but when there's a gold rush going on, it's every man for himself...so a good way to get the best and most numerous groups of workers (Mexican and Chinese nationals) to settle down and work en masse for claim owners, was to prevent them from filing their own claims...there was a hodge-podge system in place regarding mining laws until 1872...at that time it was codified that only US citizens or people who have declared their intent to become one, could file mining claims on public land...this was AFTER the Peraltas and their partners had already claimed the Valenciana in 1864...people think the Peraltas mined in the Black Canyon District because they weren't allowed to mine in the Pioneer or Walker...I think Miguel could have mined anywhere he wanted because I believe he was a US citizen...I think they mined at the Valenciana quite simply because that's where they found gold.

Best regards, Jim
Click to expand...

Howdy Jim,

I believe it was Pinal county, that did not allow Mexicans filing a claim at one time, but my memory is not that truthworthy where you could quote me on it. This could be why they clarified it on the mining law of 1872.

The Salazar Survey by Mr. Clay Worst, aslo supports that the Peralta's had no legal mine claims. Cristobal Peralta found no legal mine claims within his family, Spain, Mexico, or Arizona. While they may have worked several mines at one time, it seems they did so illegaly. Cristobal had the opportunity to file a legal claim, but felt he was too old to learn English.

Homar
 

The facts of the Mexican mining in Arizona have become so tangled in a ball of misconceptions and outright falsehoods that to try and straighten out the mess here would take the better part of a year.

To shorten it up and get down to just the bare facts, here are some thing you should know:

1. Mexicans were mining gold and silver in MANY places in "Arizona" long before the first American prospectors came on the scene.

2. Mexicans mining in "Arizona" did not use the Mining District process like the later Americans did. They did not file claims on their mines before the Americans set up the Mining District process.

3. When the first Americans came on the scene they encountered both abandoned mines and Mexicans in the process of working mines which in some cases they had been working for decades.

4. In Abraham H. Peeples personal diary of his travels he tells of coming down Black Canyon (Turkey Creek) with a group of prospectors and running into the party of Mexicans who were at the time mining the Valencia mine (near Bumble Bee Arizona). In this Mexican party were Pedro Peralta, Antonio and Miguel Peralta as well as about 15 other Mexicans, most of them related to the Peralta's.

5. At the Pima villages while getting supplies, Peeples told James Walker about the Mexicans at the Valencia and Walker with his men went there and set up several Mining Districts and drew up a charter that said the Mexicans had no rights to the mines they had been working for years.

6. To avoid bloodshed the Mexicans were allowed to sell their interest in their mines to the Americans and those sales are the recordings of Deed Transfers in the Yavapai County Recorders Book 1, years 1864-1865.

7. Miguel Peralta (an American) could not claim the Valencia mine in 1864 when confronted by Walker because Miguel Peralta did not own that mine, three Mexicans owned that mine, Adolpho Arvizu, Pedro Peralta and Ambrocio Quintero.

8. Miguel Peralta later (in July 1877) refiled on the abandoned Valencia mine and renamed it the Valenciana.

9. In 1864-1865 when Walker and Peeples first came upon the scene, none of the mines in the Superstitions were being worked by the Mexicans. That does not mean those mines were worthless or abandoned, it means the Mexicans were working other discoveries at the time.

10. Once the Americans came on the scene (1864-1865) and set up their Mining Districts with the restrictions to Mexican ownership, the game was over for the Mexicans and they had to from that point on either play the American's game or secretly work their mines that the Americans hadn't discovered yet and cover them when they returned to Mexico. The Mexicans had no reason whatsoever to claim mines in the Superstition Mountains because as soon as they identified them the Americans would have laid claim to them.

Matthew
 

Last edited:
Here is a partial list of the Mexicans Abraham Peeples encountered in the fall of 1864 at the "Valencia" mine near todays Bumble Bee, Arizona.

Pablo Peralta
Antonio Peralta
Miguel Peralta
Ignacio Garcia
Francisco Ochoa
Florentine Otero
Adolpho Arvizu
Ambrocio Quintero
Bernardo Salcido
Ramon Rodriguez

All of these men's names appear in Book 1 (1864-1865) of the Yavapai County Recorder for year 1864-1865 as transfering deeds of land identified as the Valencia.
The Peralta family and the Arvizu and Quintero families are related by marriage and it is a good bet the other men at Valencia were somehow related to the Peralta's also.

Matthew
 

Last edited:
Potbelly Jim,

Read the Yavapai County Recorders Book 1 for 1864-1865 carefully !!!

The deeds recorded showing the Mexicans as Grantors and the "American's" as Grantees are NOT transfers of a MINING CLAIM, they are transfers of LAND described as the Valencia.

The Mexicans never filed a mining claim on the Valencia when the Mining District was set by Walker.

What they were doing was selling so many feet of land to the Americans. Those feet of land just happened to be a mine.

Later on in July 1877 Miguel Peralta filed claim on the Abandoned Valencia mine and renamed it the Valenciana.

This is where everyone gets screwed up trying to interpret what happened in 1865 because they think the Mexicans actually filed a claim on the Valencia and that it was Miguel Peralta that filed that 1865 claim.

NOT TRUE, Miguel Peralta didn't file a claim until the Valencia had been abandoned for years and he renamed it the Valenciana.

Matthew
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Browns Cabin spring question

⬅️ Previous Thread

Just maybe.

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Similar threads

Bidd
Fonta Flora - Old town under Lake James
Replies
0
Views
751
Bidd
Bidd
Glen's Loyalists
  • Suggestion Suggestion
Back out on the farm
Replies
17
Views
650
oldmxrat
oldmxrat
Old Bookaroo
The Myth of Padre La Rue
Replies
5
Views
1K
russau
R

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Simplex Metal Detector

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom