JESUIT TREASURES - ARE THEY REAL?

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigos,
We have seen in the Jesuit's own hand, a passage mentioning how an Indian would not reveal the location of his secret mine even after the missionary made promises. In other sources we hear of more extreme measures.

The following is what a Wahrheitsfreund reported in 1597 for the warning of Germans who might thus be enabled to picture to themselves what the Jesuits had done outside Europe In Peru they made a practice of piercing the natives with red hot needles and compelling them by all manner of tortures to reveal the place of their hidden treasures

<History of the German people at the close of the middle ages, Volume 10 By Johannes Janssen, 1906, pp 362>

An exaggeration to discredit the Jesuits, or a bit more of the truth leaking out?

Lamar wrote

Wow, and I even used the magic word. :-( Oh well, since the reference cannot be verified independently, we will just have to chalk that one up as *highly suspect and extremely doubtful* ad infinitium, my friend.

What? You are shocked that I "neglected" to answer ONE of your questions, when you have repeatedly ignored and/or refused to answer MANY of my questions, including the one I repeated for you? You are certainly free and welcome to "chalk" that report up in any manner you desire, but for our readers it is yet more testimony - circumstantial evidence, but more than nothing, which there must be if there were never any Jesuit mines or treasures. You can easily find the source of Saint-Simon's story if you do a little research amigo, for all that will help; if you are expecting that paragraph to be enclosed in some kind of statements telling us it is all a lie, you are set for a major disappointment.

I would point out also your insistence that evidence be "verified independently" you do not hold for Jesuit claims of utter innocence of mining and possessions of treasures - quite a double standard you have there.

"Obscuris vera involvens"
Oroblanco

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[lamar]

Dear oroblanco;
I have found your reference source quote and I am currently reviewing it for (in)accuracy by checking it against it's quoted source. I'll get back with you. Don't call us, we'll call you!
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Dear oroblanco;
A quick update, my friend. First, Louis de Rouvroy, Duke of Saint-Simon never wrote any such thing as was referenced by Paul von Graf Hoensbroech which he referenced in the Duke's Memoirs. It seems that von Hoensbroech was writing about an event which occurred 100 years previously and the Duke never wrote any such account. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the Duke of Saint-Simon was ever in Cadiz.

Second, such a document seems to exist and it is housed in the archives of Seville. It's complete catalog number is Archivo General de los Indias, Indiferente, 435, L, 11/1/615.

Now I'd say that development is pretty interesting, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

A quick update, my friend. First, Louis de Rouvroy, Duke of Saint-Simon never wrote any such thing as was referenced by Paul von Graf Hoensbroech which he referenced in the Duke's Memoirs. It seems that von Hoensbroech was writing about an event which occurred 100 years previously and the Duke never wrote any such account. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the Duke of Saint-Simon was ever in Cadiz.

So now you are calling Hoensbroech a liar? Can you provide a full accounting of the movements of Saint-Simon, for his entire life, so as to prove that he was never in Cadiz? Why would he even have to be present, to have learned of the smuggling? It is ridiculous to propose that a person must be present, in order to learn of something illegal that was caught by the authorities, for word of such things gets around.

Do you call Father Charles W Polzer SJ a liar, when he said quote

From archival sources, we know of only two instances in which Padres became involved in mining operations (these being in the Sierra Madre Mission Area).

unquote

Do you call Father Nentvig SJ a liar, when he reported the Indian whom would not reveal his secret mine even after the missionary made him promises?

Do you call Thomas E. Farish a liar, when he said that the Salero mine had been worked by the Jesuits?

Do you call Robert Cooper West a liar, when he said there was a documented case of Jesuits owning a mine?

Do you say that the website for Cananea is lying, when it says that the mining registry shows the Jesuits discovered gold and silver there in 1760?

Do you say that the US Bureau of Statistics was lying when they reported mining was done as early as 1736 by the Jesuits with considerable success?

Do you call Henry David Hoskold a liar, for his numerous reports of Jesuit mines and mining activities in Argentina and Chile?

Do you call C. M. K. Paulison a liar when he reported that mines had been worked by the Jesuits?

Do you call Sylvester Mowry a liar, for his report of the valuable silver in the mission of San Xavier del Bac, and that the Jesuits had been mining in what is today Arizona?

Do you call Father Och, SJ a liar, for his report of having used mercury he had on his person to test visible gold he noticed in clay dishes?

Do you say that the beautiful Jesuit mission churches are not really ornamented with gold and silver?

Do you denounce the Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York as worthless and unreliable for having mentioned that very same $40,000 worth of silver in the San Xavier del Bac mission?

You have already shown your view of the letter of Bishop Palafox, Lamar, which mentioned the Jesuits silver mines in 1647, and made it a point to call him illegitimate. A very nice compliment for a Bishop, one can only wonder how he would like it.

These sources are not exactly a bunch of treasure writers amigos, if we were to start including those here our thread would grow to epic proportions. I guess we are supposed to just call ALL of the sources just a big pack of liars.
More to come.....
Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigos,

Concerning Bishop Palafox's letter to Pope Innocent, here is what one source had to say;

Thus did Palafox write and his statements were only too amply confirmed from other quarters From this it became clearly evident that the Loyolites had secured for themselves almost the entire traffic and that they were even not ashamed of being usurious Among other things a gigantic traffic was instituted by them from Carthagena to Quito and in order to procure the necessary means of doing this cheap the worthy Fathers annually sent some ships to Angola on the coast of Africa where it was easy to procure a number of black slaves for little money Indeed in order to save expenditure they contrived to sell a part of the human cargo to the Mexican planters us by this means the cost of the ships employed in slave catching was completely covered and they had so to speak gratis and for nothing the labourers and porters that they required It is true that in this way they gained not a few enemies for themselves more especially among their competitors that is those hitherto engaged in carrying on the same business and on one occasion the same with their servants broke in pieces during the night the greater part of the Jesuits carts The pious Fathers however did not permit themselves to be terrified thereby but continued to go on with the thing just as before until at length the High Council of Castile issued a prohibition against this trade so unsuitable for priests and missionaries

<The Jesuits: a complete history of their open and secret proceedings, By Theodor Griesinger, Andrew James Scott, 1903>


Our amigo Gollum has posted several evidences of the rules and proscriptions of the Jesuits, so this is in line with them;

For instance in a Bull of Benedict XIV dated 25th February 1741 it is stated as follows We forbid of our own motion and of our supreme power all ecclesiastical persons from following commercial pursuits even in the case when a trade has not been established by them but by lay people We forbid ecclesiastics and monkish Orders doing this as well in the case when the objects thereof are in their own domains as when they happen to be in the estates of their coadjutors and secular associates We forbid them to carry it on be it in their own name of ecclesiastics in the name of their Society or in the name of secular persons who may be dependeat upon them

Precisely the same was affirmed by Urban VIII 1625 and if in this case the sons of Loyola were not expressly named it was still apparent from the words employed that they alone as members of the Society of Jesus were alluded to But what then did the Jesuits answer to this They rejoined nothing but continued to carry on their trade as before not troubling themselves in the slightest degree about the Papal Bulls

Thus for example the University of Paris in the year 1664 brought to light a contract which was entered into in the town of Dieppe by Notary Thomas le Vasseur and his partner Rene Bense and it was apparent from this contract that the worthy Fathers carried on a trade with Canada in partnership with the whaling outfitters of Dieppe sharing indeed profit and loss The contracting parties were Carl de Biencourt and M de St Just of Dieppe with Thomas Robin and M de Calognes of Paris on the one part and on the other the Fathers Biard and Ennemont Masse of the Society of Jesus the deed runs thus -

" The said present and covenanting parties acknowledge that they trade in common on account of the cargo of the ship Grace of God and the worthy Fathers Biard and Masse who have signed in the name of their Order give this combination the right to the half of all kinds of wares especially to the half of the cargo of the ship Grace of God "

<ibid>

Where indeed could anyone ever find a piece of silver which can be traced to the Jesuits? Read on amigos,

Again King Philip III of Spain gave permission to the sons of Loyola living in his kingdom to coin the rough gold and silver that they obtained from America according to the usual standard to the amount indeed of a million of piasters in order that with the profit thus obtained they might be in a position to build a college in Malaga the cunning Fathers however extended this permission to the extent of three millions and the four maravedi pieces which they coined were so bad that it gave rise to a general grumbling It passed into a proverbial saying if a dishonest debtor paid half to his creditors he had liquidated his debt with the maravedis of the Jesuits and ultimately it came to this that the Government were compelled to lower the value of this denomination of coin because no one would take them any longer

<ibid>

So if you want to hold a piece of Jesuit silver, get a Spanish Maravedi coin dating to the reign of King Philip III and you will have one! Notice that this permission was to actually mint coinage, using the silver and gold that the Jesuits had obtained in America!

Is this all the evidence of Jesuit treasures and mines? What do you think amigos!
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Lamar wrote

A quick update, my friend. First, Louis de Rouvroy, Duke of Saint-Simon never wrote any such thing as was referenced by Paul von Graf Hoensbroech which he referenced in the Duke's Memoirs. It seems that von Hoensbroech was writing about an event which occurred 100 years previously and the Duke never wrote any such account. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the Duke of Saint-Simon was ever in Cadiz.

So now you are calling Hoensbroech a liar? Can you provide a full accounting of the movements of Saint-Simon, for his entire life, so as to prove that he was never in Cadiz? Why would he even have to be present, to have learned of the smuggling? It is ridiculous to propose that a person must be present, in order to learn of something illegal that was caught by the authorities, for word of such things gets around.

Do you call Father Charles W Polzer SJ a liar, when he said quote

From archival sources, we know of only two instances in which Padres became involved in mining operations (these being in the Sierra Madre Mission Area).

unquote

Do you call Father Nentvig SJ a liar, when he reported the Indian whom would not reveal his secret mine even after the missionary made him promises?

Do you call Thomas E. Farish a liar, when he said that the Salero mine had been worked by the Jesuits?

Do you call Robert Cooper West a liar, when he said there was a documented case of Jesuits owning a mine?

Do you say that the website for Cananea is lying, when it says that the mining registry shows the Jesuits discovered gold and silver there in 1760?

Do you say that the US Bureau of Statistics was lying when they reported mining was done as early as 1736 by the Jesuits with considerable success?

Do you call Henry David Hoskold a liar, for his numerous reports of Jesuit mines and mining activities in Argentina and Chile?

Do you call C. M. K. Paulison a liar when he reported that mines had been worked by the Jesuits?

Do you call Sylvester Mowry a liar, for his report of the valuable silver in the mission of San Xavier del Bac, and that the Jesuits had been mining in what is today Arizona?

Do you call Father Och, SJ a liar, for his report of having used mercury he had on his person to test visible gold he noticed in clay dishes?

Do you say that the beautiful Jesuit mission churches are not really ornamented with gold and silver?

Do you denounce the Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York as worthless and unreliable for having mentioned that very same $40,000 worth of silver in the San Xavier del Bac mission?

You have already shown your view of the letter of Bishop Palafox, Lamar, which mentioned the Jesuits silver mines in 1647, and made it a point to call him illegitimate. A very nice compliment for a Bishop, one can only wonder how he would like it.

These sources are not exactly a bunch of treasure writers amigos, if we were to start including those here our thread would grow to epic proportions. I guess we are supposed to just call ALL of the sources just a big pack of liars.
More to come.....
Oroblanco

Dear oroblanco;
This debate is starting to accquire the aspects of a barroom brawl, my friend. First, I did state that Ven. Juan de Palafox was illegitimate because he WAS illegitimate. There is no shame in this fact and the facts ARE the facts! If you don't believe my words, then you can do your own research into the matter and then you will have the opportunity to read about it for yourself.
Quote:
"Born in Navarre, Palafox y Mendoza was the natural son of Jaime de Palafox. He was taken in by a family of millers who gave him the name "Juan" and raised him for ten years. Thereafter his father recognized him, and had him educated at Alcalá and Salamanca."
End quote:
The quote was taken from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Palafox

The quote from Wiki seems to have been taken from the Roman Catholic Church's description of Juan de Palafox, yet because I have done the same as my Church, I am to be cruxified for this?

I am growing tired of explaining myself over and over about the most simple matters and my patience is growing short, therefore I am going to take this opportunity to bow out of this discussion. Permanently, as it were. Good day sir.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[rochha]

In DUCRUES ACCOUNT OF THE EXPULSION OF THE JESUITS FROM LOWER CALIFORNIA (1767 –1769). Which was edited by Ernest J. Burrus S. J. On page 54 is this passage when mentioning Father Jakob Baegert S. J., a Jesuit Missionary concerning California.

“ Improvements of no less moment were made in the other mission centers, as Father Baegert recounts accurately in his History of California, and refutes the inaccurate statements of our enemies and the claims based on the ignorance of others who maintain that California abounds in gold and silver and teems with precious gems and pearls. Although a few veins of gold were found here and there, the yield was so poor that it did not repay the efforts made nor sufficed to keep a person alive. Silver mines might yield adequate returns, but, inasmuch as water is for the most part lacking, as also mills, as well as wood and mercury, what little profit might be made does not cover the expenses. As for precious gems, not a one has thus far been found. Nor are pearls found in such abundance as to repay the outlay of money, as the pearl divers themselves have informed us. “

From that passage it appears to me that they had intent in gold and silver mining in California to the extent of when finding mineral deposits calculating if it was worth the effort to provide a profit for them.

Lamar I am sorry you feel this is getting to be like a bar room brawl and feel the need to bow out. I was also looking forward to your remarks about the gold that was found smuggled in chocolate balls to Most Venerable Father General of the Society of Jesus. You choose not to even address it. Why?


Rochha

Edited by Rochha...some content was thought of as anti catholic and offensive so I removed it.

 

[cactusjumper]

Charlie,

"Usually Joe where there is smoke there is fire! Or are these facts considered questionable? I believe the above passage I posted leaves little doubt of actually working a mine for profit vs. just discovering it as they were exploring the lay out of the land."

While it leaves little doubt in YOUR mind, there is nothing that you have ever posted on this subject that approches proof of Jesuit mining or treasure. On the other hand, maybe, it could be and possibly seems to be the order of the day.

Take care,

Joe

 

[rochha]

I believe this shows him scoping out the land for possible mineral deposits and which ones would be good to work by them for profits. I believe it shows intent. He apparently has first hand knowledge of a few gold veins being worked when he said “Although a few veins of gold were found here and there, the yield was so poor that it did not repay the efforts made nor sufficed to keep a person alive “. I believe that first hand knowledge to be from them working it. That is how I interpret that passage.

Then again I could be wrong,

Rochha

 

[cactusjumper]

Charlie,

I agree.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Ladies & gentlemen: As you undoubtedly know there were two councils for the Indies. One was for South America and the other for North America. Many of their laws and decrees were different.

The North American council allowed Jesuits to mine under certain conditions. It specifically stated that if a Priest came into the title of a mine he was allowed to work it until He found a satisfactory way to dispose of it, intimating not at a loss financially or of a specific time reference - indefinitely.

They also were exempt from registering any mines that they had. I have no idea if they had a legal title to any of the mines that they worked, a wonderful way of bypassing any 'public records'.

Fascinating what a bit of judicious passing of coin of the realm can do with the law makers, same as today. And they were famous for this. he he he.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

Dear oroblanco;
This debate is starting to accquire the aspects of a barroom brawl, my friend. The quote from Wiki seems to have been taken from the Roman Catholic Church's description of Juan de Palafox, yet because I have done the same as my Church, I am to be cruxified for this? Huh

I am growing tired of explaining myself over and over about the most simple matters and my patience is growing short, therefore I am going to take this opportunity to bow out of this discussion. Permanently, as it were. Good day sir.

The quote from Wiki does indeed include Palafox's illegitimate birth, which I still fail to see any reason for including that "fascinating" bit of his family history as it has no bearing on our subject, unless you were trying to cast aspersions on the Bishop.

Crucified? Bar-room brawl? What vivid terminology! Exaggerated just a wee bit there amigo? I have been following the very same discussion but fail to see anything like a bar-room brawl (and yes I know what one looks like) nor anything remotely like a crucifixion. Your perception of a disagreement in these terms surprises me.

Lamar do as you must, and of course, good day to you too monsieur!

Cactusjumper wrote

On the other hand, maybe, it could be and possibly seems to be the order of the day.

The order of the day? I respectfully disagree - the Order of the day is ye olde Society of Jesus! Really Joe I don't know what you are expecting for your own "smoking gun" when the actual case fits neither the massive extremes we are told of in some treasure writers, nor the utter and total "innocence" of any and all treasures and/or mines, as we get from our amigo Lamar and so many Jesuit sources. You have said to our amigo, "You would never be on such a jury. Pre-conceived notions of guilt and long held biases would have you disqualified from the start. “ - are you also, totally free of any notions of guilt or innocence, and hold no biases where the Jesuits are concerned? For that matter, who is?

You also wrote, "I don't believe that no Jesuit ever engaged in mining or broke their vows. In fact, I am sure that happened. Because I believe that to be the case, does not mean I will accept every piece of questionable "evidence" that you quote." Do you hold all Jesuit sources in the same level of skepticism? Complete freedom from all bias and pre-judgement is a rare and difficult thing.

I have seen it posted that the Jesuits being expelled from the Spanish dominions had nothing to do with any accusations of mining, which is not true. They were accused of having secret silver mines. Here is a list of eight accusations flung at the Jesuits in Baja California, in the period leading to the expulsion;

1 that the soldiers were slaves to the padres
2 were forced to pay exorbitant prices for food
3 that the Indians were overworked and underfed
4 that the Jesuits had silver mines concealed
5 that it was their fault that the mines of Sta Ana and S Antonio did not flourish
6 that they opposed colonization
7 that they traded with Englishmen
8 that they taught the Indians nothing of the king of Spain
<Baegert Nachrichten 331 4 mentions this series of eight charges presented to the viceroy in 1766 >
The captain of the garrison in Baja California sent a sworn denial of the truth of these charges.
The secret mines charge was leveled against them in Paraguay, and though none of those alleged mines has been found (as far as I know) they were supported by a Jesuit letter which was intercepted and this was used to give "casus belli" for proceeding against the Jesuits.. The letter could have been a forgery. Does this mean that NO Jesuits were ever mining in the Americas, surreptitiously or even openly? That is what we are supposed to believe.

Many of the early sources which attribute various mines to the Jesuits got their information from local Indians. Many of our treasure writers also got their information on Jesuit mines and treasures from Indians - our Jesuit apologists wish for us to dismiss all of these sources as "worthless and unreliable" - yet what reason would the Indians have to lie about this? What harm would they have gotten, if they simply said the mines had belonged to Spaniards? I do not hold these sources in such contempt as our Jesuit apologists do. They are closer in time to when the Jesuits were there, and the Indians they got their information from were likely children of Indians who worked under the Jesuits.

I have to wonder, if we were not discussing Jesuits but (for instance) Franciscans, would there be such great efforts to deny and refute all sources, any and all evidence? Something is quite different when we discuss the Jesuits.

Don Jose de la Mancha wrote

The North American council allowed Jesuits to mine under certain conditions. It specifically stated that if a Priest came into the title of a mine he was allowed to work it until He found a satisfactory way to dispose of it, intimating not at a loss financially or of a specific time reference - indefinitely.
They also were exempt from registering any mines that they had. I have no idea if they had a legal title to any of the mines that they worked, a wonderful way of bypassing any 'public records'.

I have been trying to locate an original decree that mentioned this exemption, as I believe I have seen it once <in Espanol unfortunately and a bit confusing> and will keep looking. It is the biggest reason why so few records of Jesuit-owned mines have ever been found (at least in Mexico/USA/Canada) but some were bequeathments or as in the one documented case found by West, a mine was signed over to settle a debt to the Padres.

There are two sides to any story, and I have only been presenting the "prosecution" side. Some of the accusations leveled at the Jesuits were false, I have been including all for the sake of completeness. I don't wish to paint the Jesuits any 'blacker' than they really were, but refuse to be silent when we are being fed 'whitewashed saints' in place of the human beings who actually manned the missions. A problem exists in that (from what I could find) most of the mining done by "Jesuits" was done by Jesuit Lay Brothers, not the priests, yet it is common usage to say "the Padres were mining" and this is inaccurate and a little misleading, likely leading to offense to those who admire the PRIESTS. We probably ought to be more specific (saying monks or brothers rather than padres or priests) as the number of priests who had or worked mines is quite low.

Sweeping things under the rug only makes for a lumpy and filthy rug; to pretend that no bad things ever occurred is a bad and even dangerous practice.
Oroblanco

 

[cactusjumper]

Roy,

[The order of the day? I respectfully disagree - the Order of the day is ye olde Society of Jesus! Really Joe I don't know what you are expecting for your own "smoking gun" when the actual case fits neither the massive extremes we are told of in some treasure writers, nor the utter and total "innocence" of any and all treasures and/or mines, as we get from our amigo Lamar and so many Jesuit sources. You have said to our amigo, "You would never be on such a jury. Pre-conceived notions of guilt and long held biases would have you disqualified from the start. “ - are you also, totally free of any notions of guilt or innocence, and hold no biases where the Jesuits are concerned? For that matter, who is?

You also wrote, "I don't believe that no Jesuit ever engaged in mining or broke their vows. In fact, I am sure that happened. Because I believe that to be the case, does not mean I will accept every piece of questionable "evidence" that you quote." Do you hold all Jesuit sources in the same level of skepticism? Complete freedom from all bias and pre-judgement is a rare and difficult thing.]

I have stated my position on this many, many times. I only came to my conclusions after decades of research, on both sides of the topic. I have read, over those years, countless arguments for Jesuit mining in MEXICO, Most of them are sitting on my bookshelf. With my limited time and funds, I have done the best I can do.

I started out a firm believer in all of your points concerning Jesuit treasure. My own research was, primarily, concerned with the Jesuits in Mexico. I have stuck a tentative toe into South America, China and the rest of North America. My arguments have always been confined to Mexico and the Southwest, where I feel the most confident in my research.

I stick to the historical facts, as they stand to date. Those facts may be altered any day, and a new history will surface. If and when that happens, I will be happy to embrace the new, true, story. It is the same course I have followed in researching the LDM. Many consider me a naysayer there as well. They contend my doubts are directly attributed to the fact that I have never found the LDM, ignoring the fact I have never searched for it, on my own, nor found the Jesuit treasure I used to believe in.

While still searching for the cave of gold bars, which I originally believed was Jesuit treasure, I concluded that there was no such thing a Jesuit treasure. I still believe in the cave of gold bars, just that there was another source for the treasure.

I believe I have stated my position clearly, and many times. I don't fault those who still believe and present their arguments, I fault the evidence they bring to the debate. Both you and Beth have presented pictures of giant "Jesuit" furnaces and a huge building said to have been built to house the gold/silver that came from their mine(s).

The size, and fact that they are located in and next to the settlement/fort that was started by soldiers to protect the branch of the Camino Real that ran through that place, is the best argument against either of those two things being Jesuit. Is it your contention that the Jesuits might have claimed that they built those things as motels for Camino Real travellers? To me, the evidence seems ludicrous. In truth, it flies in the face of your arguments that the Jesuits were masters of deceit and secrecy.

You have asked why the townspeople would make such claims if they were not true. The answer is that they do it for the very same reason that the natives do......To bring treasure hunters into the area. The town was, basically, a ghost town. They now have a story that attracts tourists and folks like Don Jose. Those visitors bring cash and create a higher standard of living for everyone they come into contact with.

It's a common story that takes place around the world, and especially in the Southwest. The Mexican people are desperate for anything that will better their lives. That, my friend, is the true reality of Jesuit treasure.

It all still boils down to one man's opinion, so I could be wrong.

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Yammy,

Welcome to the discussion.

You have said, in a few words, what it has taken me volumes to say.

Take care,

Joe

 

[rochha]

While searching in my research files for something concerning Jose Galves about the Jesuit expulsion I came across that passage. When I read it, it struck me how he worded what he was saying about gold and silver in California. It sounded to me as if he had first hand knowledge of cost vs. profit concerning those mineral deposits because Jesuits had worked them.

What I should have said was “ from that passage it appears to me that they had intent in gold and silver mining in California to the extent of when finding mineral deposits calculating if it was worth the effort to provide a profit for them. “

Rochha

 

[cactusjumper]

Charlie,

In your research files, surely you have read the history of the priests, of all orders, reporting the riches of the land they explored. They were searching for souls to save, while keeping an eye out for those things that the State was interested in. Spain helped the missions with annual stipends for their upkeep. While the king's had the saving of heathen souls in their hearts, they had the treasuries of the kingdom in their minds.

The Jesuits had knowledge of many worldly enterprises prior to being forbidden to know such things. How, exactly, do you un-ring that bell?
The king's representatives in Mexico City authorized soldiers to accompany the priests in many of their explorations of the New World. They all did that with the expectation that the priests would bring them back more information than the number of souls to be saved.

History shows us that the Spanish were obsessed with treasure. They had no problem hacking the native population to pieces to get it. The Jesuits were one of the few impediments to their killing or enslaving every Native American they came into contact with. At the time, they were immensely proud of this, and believed God was on their side. That accounts for the excellent historical accounts that detail their actions.

By reading your posts, many might think you are anti-Jesuit, anti-Catholic or disdainful of historians. I am not saying that is so, but if I apply your own methods of extrapolations against the Jesuits and historians to your own writings........

Take care,

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Charlie,

"While searching in my research files for something concerning Jose Galves about the Jesuit expulsion..."

I assume you are talking about Jose de Galvez. Just want to be sure before I comment.

Take care,

Joe

 

[rochha]

I am not anti Catholic, if it appears that way that is not the image I want to project. That is why I made an apology to anyone in a previous post who might be offended as to what I believe about this.

Yes I have read a lot of history related to those topics. Sometimes our beliefs interpret things for us when we read about it. I cant help but believe those mineral deposits played a huge role in their activities back then. I don’t mean to paint a broad stroke of guilt to the entire Society of Jesuits, only some.

I don’t know why it would be such a bad thing that they did engage in mining for their own gain. They saved a lot of souls and did do a lot of good for the church. Maybe they would have done some real good in that time with their intentions.

Who knows!

Yes I was refering to Don Jose de Galvez.



Rochha

 

[Springfield]

..... You have asked why the townspeople would make such claims if they were not true. The answer is that they do it for the very same reason that the natives do......To bring treasure hunters into the area. The town was, basically, a ghost town. They now have a story that attracts tourists and folks like Don Jose. Those visitors bring cash and create a higher standard of living for everyone they come into contact with.

It's a common story that takes place around the world, and especially in the Southwest. The Mexican people are desperate for anything that will better their lives. That, my friend, is the true reality of Jesuit treasure....

Maybe even surpassed by the innumerable Pancho Villa treasure hunts available for a price to gringos in nearly every village in Chihuahua, Sonora and elsewhere. The Villalistas seemingly spent half the revolution digging holes.

 

[cactusjumper]

Charlie,

"By reading your posts, many might think you are anti-Jesuit, anti-Catholic or disdainful of historians. I am not saying that is so, but if I apply your own methods of extrapolations against the Jesuits and historians to your own writings........"

I believe I wrote a bit more there than you might have read.

That is a problem that is not uncommon with people who argue on the side of Jesuit mining and treasure, as illustrated by your highlighting of certain words in your quote from "Ducrue's Account".

“ Improvements of no less moment were made in the other mission centers, as Father Baegert recounts accurately in his History of California, and refutes the inaccurate statements of our enemies and the claims based on the ignorance of others who maintain that California abounds in gold and silver and teems with precious gems and pearls. Although a few veins of gold were found here and there, the yield was so poor that it did not repay the efforts made nor sufficed to keep a person alive. Silver mines might yield adequate returns, but, inasmuch as water is for the most part lacking, as also mills, as well as wood and mercury, what little profit might be made does not cover the expenses. As for precious gems, not a one has thus far been found. Nor are pearls found in such abundance as to repay the outlay of money, as the pearl divers themselves have informed us. “

At the end of that quote you conclude: "It would appear that they did engage in mining of gold and silver and had an interest in precious gems as well."

How you conclude that is beyond me. It's as if you believe that these highly educated men had no idea of what was transpiring in the lands around them and their missions. You assume they never talked to soldiers, miners or Spanish explorers, all sources for this kind of information. On the other hand, I believe they did harvest pearls.

On the following page (55), note 39 reads:

"Cf. Baegert, Observations, especially pp. 44-50, 187-189, and my editions of Linck's writings. Carayon, p. 363, appends a note to the effect that in his time several well-intentioned writers claimed that the Jesuits knew about the mineral riches of the region; but, in order to keep out undesirable searchers for them, said nothing to advertize their dangerous presence: Obviously, the opinion of (quelques ecrivains) does not go beyond the merest conjecture. Carayon rightly point out the difference between the peninsula proper, where the colonial Jesuit missions had been established and Upper California, where considerable gold had been found."

"Ducrue's Account" is one of my favorite books and I have often quoted from it, over the years. In fact, I was the one who recommended that book to you back in 2003. At that time, you didn't even know what the initials S.J. stood for. No doubt you remember that. You have come a long way.

Take care,

Joe