Springfield wrote
I just don't believe the exaggerated legends that have been attached to the reasonably solid framework. Too many unverifiable treasure stories of questionable provenance, too many mysterious documents, too many faked artifacts/recoveries. Who benefits from this kind of guile? Good question - the writers, scammers and glory-seekers, for sure.
While I can agree that scammers and glory-seekers have solid motives (however counter to morals) to assign such blame to them, you have included writers here in the same breath. How does a writer gain by faked artifacts, recoveries, mysterious documents etc? I am still waiting to see a list of treasure writers/authors whom became wealthy from the profits of their treasure writings. If anything, a writer whom included false/faked info
only discredits himself/herself.
I don't think anyone is proposing that the
exaggerated legends are true; some of this exaggeration is probably innocent in origins, just on the basis of some kind of treasure was hidden and lost, people have sought after it, which implies that it must have great value or they would not have sought it etc and the "image" or idea of what that treasure (or mine) truly is becomes inflated from the reality. Even in reading the written word telling of such a lost treasures, some will get an inflated vision of what is being said, just from the way things are phrased.
Your point about
SOME mines being over-rated is also true - the Jesuit gold mines in Baja, when taken over by the Spanish, were found to be too low grade to be able to work at a profit. However in the case of the silver mines in particular of southern Arizona, we know that the later American operators found them to be rich in silver, and produced a fairly impressive amount. I see nothing to controvert what was reported from the early American owners of the Salero, Wandering Jew, among others.
Can you cite an example of a Jesuit silver mine in southern Arizona, which was proven to be LOW grade? Thank you in advance.
Your point about the operation of mines, "under the eyes" of the Spanish and yet the Spanish did nothing about it, is based on the assumption that the Spanish would definitely have done something about it if there really were such mines. Yet it has been shown that the Jesuits owned several mines and were operating very much "under the eyes" of the Spanish authorities, and not a thing was done about those either. The fact that it was illegal for religious clerics of all Orders to be mining was clearly
widely ignored and/or winked at throughout Spanish America. The padres invariably would point to their colleges as the "true" owners when any one DID raise objection to it, and I am sure that had any Spaniard raised objection to the mines in Pimeria Alta, the padres would have stated the mines belong to the mission, and thus to the Indians with themselves as the legal guardians of the Indians - so had a legal ground or foundation for the mines. It is also good to keep in mind that the large majority of Spanish were Catholics, and a good Catholic would not be attacking a Catholic priest for his businesses without running the risks that entailed, and to keep in mind that the Spanish troops assigned to protect the missions, were practically (and in some cases, actually) under the orders of the padres.
One last point on this issue but we know of at least one Spanish expedition into Pimeria Alta after the departure of the Jesuits, seeking the old Jesuit mines. So the Spanish knowledge of the mines was not a complete secret either. Another factor to consider, if oblique, is the rather determined search executed by the Spanish authorities for the treasures of the Jesuits, mostly unsuccessful, but one has to suspect that the reason why the Spanish authorities were SO energetic in their searching was that they knew of the mines and what they must have produced, that there was no "official" records of these treasures being shipped out, so knew that it had to be there. Word had to have filtered up to the Royal authorities, whether through Indians loyal to the Crown or through Spanish soldiers or even visitors to the missions it is impossible to say.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As no one seems to have answered my previous questions concerning the slag, perhaps I should address them to Cactusjumper Joe specifically, as Joe stated that he did not believe that the slag was sold. So I repeat the questions, but to Joe specifically, and of course anyone else whom wishes to reply is certainly welcome to.
I would like to see the alternate explanation for the slag piles, which I will put in bold for ease of reading;
Joe
A: do you claim that the witnesses whom reported seeing the slag piles, like Dr Williamson in 1860, were telling the truth or not?
B: if you allow that there were indeed slag heaps, what happened to them, as you dismiss the report that they were hauled off and sold for the silver content?
C: how do you explain the presence of smelter slag built into San Xavier and Tumacacori churches themselves?
On a different aspect;
do you agree that there was smelting activity at the missions, while padres were running the show?
If so, where do you suppose the ore they smelted came from, if not from Jesuit (and later, Franciscan) mines?
Thank you in advance;
Oroblanco
