Tumacacori Mission Mines RE: Sister Micaela Molina Document

[cactusjumper]

Don Jose,

Let me see if I understand what you just wrote:

".....possible collaboration with the Society..." Is one of the offers of proof that you will present........
"someday". Is that correct?

Does that have something to do with having coffee with the local Jesuit and talking about Tayopa? That same coffee that you have been avoiding for how long now? It can't be that you are too busy to make that first sip happen.

Geterdone!

Take care,

Joe

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Infosponge]

Greetings Lamar,

Dear group;
before one embarks upon a debate, one must FIRST research the VALIDITY of their position. This is critical to all aspects of a good debate and it's obvious that no one has bothered to research the history of the debate prior to engaging in said debate. For example, the Jesuits have been viewed as money-hungry slave owners yet how can this possibly be stated without first researching the HISTORY

I have been told that the Jesuits were totally against slavery, is that true?

Thank you in advance,

Sincerely,

Infosponge

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Joe, you deserve an answer, but due to the sensitivity of it , I will only pm it, never to be revealed by you. ok?

Incidentally that coffee lies over 6 hrs driving time away, and in no way adds to or subtracts from Tayopa. There is no hurry. Tayopa is proven.

Don Jose de La Mancha (Tropical Tramp)

 

[cactusjumper]

Infosponge,

"I have been told that the Jesuits were totally against slavery, is that true?"

No it's not true. What's your point? Most were against the practice, but those who used slaves claimed they, and their schools, could not survive without slave labor. They were told, in fact, many times to end the practice. They did what they felt they had to do to further the faith.

Of course, they were wrong, but they were just men preaching the word. In many cases there will be those who don't practice what they preach. As far as I know, they didn't have slaves in Mexico. All were working for the common good and to feed themselves in times that normally led to famin.

When the Jesuits were expelled, history tells us, things went to hell in most of the places where they had control in Northern Mexico.

They probably spit on the sidewalks as well.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Infosponge]

Cactusjumper,

"I have been told that the Jesuits were totally against slavery, is that true?"

No it's not true. What's your point?

Lamar brought it up. I directed my question to him, not you. But being you feel qualified in answering the question, so be it.

those who used slaves claimed they, and their schools, could not survive without slave labor.

Let me get this straight. If it was blacks doing all that work so they, and their schools could survive, it is referred to as "slave labor." But if it was Indians doing all that work so they, and their schools could survive, it wasn't referred to as "slave labor."

They were told, in fact, many times to end the practice.

May I ask by whom?

They did what they felt they had to do to further the faith.

I don't know about anyone else, but I couldn't agree with you more on that point!

As far as I know, they didn't have slaves in Mexico.

Really? I guess you missed this little tidbit. In the book titled “Rudo Ensayo: a Description of Sonora and Arizona in 1764,” written by Juan Nentvig, S.J., on page 85 he states, “It was at Matape that the first Negro slaves were brought into the Sonora province in 1672-73 by Daniel Angelo Marras, S.J.”

When the Jesuits were expelled, history tells us, things went to hell in most of the places where they had control in Northern Mexico.

In The book titled “Slavery and Salvation in Colonial Cartagena de Indias," written by Margaret M. Olsen. On page 14 Ms. Olsen wrote that "The Jesuit order was a major player in the slave trade, and by the time of their expulsion in 1767 were the largest slaveholders in the Americas.”

They probably spit on the sidewalks as well.

I wouldn't do that in Singapore!

Sincerely,

Infosponge

 

[lamar]

Cactusjumper,

"I have been told that the Jesuits were totally against slavery, is that true?"

No it's not true. What's your point?

Lamar brought it up. I directed my question to him, not you. But being you feel qualified in answering the question, so be it.

those who used slaves claimed they, and their schools, could not survive without slave labor.

Let me get this straight. If it was blacks doing all that work so they, and their schools could survive, it is referred to as "slave labor." But if it was Indians doing all that work so they, and their schools could survive, it wasn't referred to as "slave labor."

They were told, in fact, many times to end the practice.

May I ask by whom?

They did what they felt they had to do to further the faith.

I don't know about anyone else, but I couldn't agree with you more on that point!

As far as I know, they didn't have slaves in Mexico.

Really? I guess you missed this little tidbit. In the book titled “Rudo Ensayo: a Description of Sonora and Arizona in 1764,” written by Juan Nentvig, S.J., on page 85 he states, “It was at Matape that the first Negro slaves were brought into the Sonora province in 1672-73 by Daniel Angelo Marras, S.J.”

When the Jesuits were expelled, history tells us, things went to hell in most of the places where they had control in Northern Mexico.

In The book titled “Slavery and Salvation in Colonial Cartagena de Indias," written by Margaret M. Olsen. On page 14 Ms. Olsen wrote that "The Jesuit order was a major player in the slave trade, and by the time of their expulsion in 1767 were the largest slaveholders in the Americas.”

They probably spit on the sidewalks as well.

I wouldn't do that in Singapore!

Sincerely,

Infosponge

Dear Infosponge;
I took the liberty of contacting Ms. Olsen and I wrote to her the following email:
Dear Ms. Olsen;

Greetings! My name is Lamar and I have a legitimate question regarding a quote from a passage which was supposedly taken from a volume you authored entitled Slavery and Salvation in Colonial Cartagena de Indias. The quote in question can be found on Page 14 and is as follows:



"The Jesuit order was a major player in the slave trade, and by the time of their expulsion in 1767 were the largest slaveholders in the Americas.”



If this is in fact an actual quote taken from your book, it would please me greatly if you would be able to provide with your reference source material whereby you concluded that the Jesuits did indeed own slaves. Thank you for all kindness and consideration in this matter and I pray that I have not overly troubled you.

Your friend;

LAMAR


And now we wait my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Infosponge]

Lamar,

it would please me greatly if you would be able to provide with your reference source material whereby you concluded that the Jesuits did indeed own slaves.

You might want to check these out.

Georgetown University American Studies Department. This archive contains personal, legal, and financial documents produced on six Jesuit-owned plantation in Maryland between 1650 and 1838.
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/bassr/tamlit/info/cepacs.html

The Jesuit Plantation Project. Memorial to Missouri Province, Father Peter Kenny, S.J. A letter. "In determining the places to which the coloured [sic] servants belong, the visitor meant to have it understood that as the missioner at St. Ferdinand has for his immediate superior, the local superior of the farm, whether he be or be not master of novices, so the farm is bound to supply him with a servant, who is to be removed & changed as the superior of the farm may direct, provided another be substituted in his place. The missioner for the residence at St. Ferdinand acquires no other right in the servant, than the services which he renders to him, as long as he is allowed to remain with him. The visitor takes this occasion of recording the satisfaction which he experiensed [sic], & the edification which he received on witnessing in each of our houses of the Missouri, the good sandust, [sic] industry & christian piety of all the coloured [sic] servants of both sexes. He considers that as a matter of credit to our fathers & of much edification to the faithful in general, & it is the more appreciated by the visitor, as our houses of Missouri are the only ones, where no complaints have been made of the slaves. To preserve so great a good as he exhorts the fathers to preserve every where the same paternal & yet vigilant conduct towards those creatures, whose happiness here & hereafter so much depends on the treatment they derive from their masters. All our priests & nonpriests will understand, that is strictly & solemny [sic] forbidden them to inflict any species of corporal chastisement on a female slave, or ever to threaten by word or act, that they will themselves personally chastise them. Should such correction ever become necessary, lay persons may be employed to do it. Neither are the priests to inflict corporal chastisement on the male servants, but this when necessary, it may be allowed to lay brothers who have authority over them. By this prohibition priests are prevented from administering to any one corporal chastisement, however well deserved, which could be considered severe punishment. But though they should as much as possible ever attain from an act so little consonant to their sacred character, it is not here intended, to interdict that slight correction which is sometimes necessary to be given to boys & youth, who are not yet 21 years of age. The visitor earnestly hopes, that the college of St. Louis will soon imitate the example given at the farm of the novice ship by providing separate houses or chambers for each family of servants, & what is still more necessary, separate places for the unmarried males & females. http://www.georgetown.edu/departments/amer-studies/jpp/126_6.html (link no longer active)

The book titled "Jesuit Slaveholding in Maryland, 1717-1838, by Thomas J. Murphy S.J. Murphy bemoans the apologetic manner in which most Catholic historians--the overwhelming majority of whom have been priests--have traditionally ignored the reality that for nearly two centuries, Jesuits in Maryland owned human beings. "Mainstream historians" Albert J. Raboteau and Eugene Genovese have remained almost entirely uninterested in the issue of Catholic slaveholding. Jesuits serving in Maryland in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries had their own unique motives for slaveholding. The community also had unique motives when, in 1838, it chose to abandon the institution of slavery, not by manumitting its 272 slaves, but by selling them to two sugar plantation owners in Louisiana. The Jesuits had rich philosophical and theological traditions to draw from when justifying their decision to use slave labor on their plantations. http://jsr.as.wvu.edu/2002/Reviews/Farrelly.htm

The Jesuit-owned Santa Cruz farm had 1,205 slaves. The Benedictines and the Carmelites also acquired properties and large numbers of slaves. "The monasteries are full of slaves," cried 19th century Brazilian abolitionist Joaquim Nabuco. Many of the cleric who protested the abuse of slaves had a "low regard for Africans" and "held that discipline, chastisement, and work were the only way to overcome the slaves' superstition, indolence, and lack of civility."
http://www.nathanielturner.com/religionandcolonialbrazil.htm

Do you still wish to maintain that Jesuits never owned slaves?

Sincerely,

Infosponge

 

[lamar]

Lamar,

it would please me greatly if you would be able to provide with your reference source material whereby you concluded that the Jesuits did indeed own slaves.

You might want to check these out.

Georgetown University American Studies Department. This archive contains personal, legal, and financial documents produced on six Jesuit-owned plantation in Maryland between 1650 and 1838.
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/bassr/tamlit/info/cepacs.html

The Jesuit Plantation Project. Memorial to Missouri Province, Father Peter Kenny, S.J. A letter. "In determining the places to which the coloured [sic] servants belong, the visitor meant to have it understood that as the missioner at St. Ferdinand has for his immediate superior, the local superior of the farm, whether he be or be not master of novices, so the farm is bound to supply him with a servant, who is to be removed & changed as the superior of the farm may direct, provided another be substituted in his place. The missioner for the residence at St. Ferdinand acquires no other right in the servant, than the services which he renders to him, as long as he is allowed to remain with him. The visitor takes this occasion of recording the satisfaction which he experiensed [sic], & the edification which he received on witnessing in each of our houses of the Missouri, the good sandust, [sic] industry & christian piety of all the coloured [sic] servants of both sexes. He considers that as a matter of credit to our fathers & of much edification to the faithful in general, & it is the more appreciated by the visitor, as our houses of Missouri are the only ones, where no complaints have been made of the slaves. To preserve so great a good as he exhorts the fathers to preserve every where the same paternal & yet vigilant conduct towards those creatures, whose happiness here & hereafter so much depends on the treatment they derive from their masters. All our priests & nonpriests will understand, that is strictly & solemny [sic] forbidden them to inflict any species of corporal chastisement on a female slave, or ever to threaten by word or act, that they will themselves personally chastise them. Should such correction ever become necessary, lay persons may be employed to do it. Neither are the priests to inflict corporal chastisement on the male servants, but this when necessary, it may be allowed to lay brothers who have authority over them. By this prohibition priests are prevented from administering to any one corporal chastisement, however well deserved, which could be considered severe punishment. But though they should as much as possible ever attain from an act so little consonant to their sacred character, it is not here intended, to interdict that slight correction which is sometimes necessary to be given to boys & youth, who are not yet 21 years of age. The visitor earnestly hopes, that the college of St. Louis will soon imitate the example given at the farm of the novice ship by providing separate houses or chambers for each family of servants, & what is still more necessary, separate places for the unmarried males & females. http://www.georgetown.edu/departments/amer-studies/jpp/126_6.html (link no longer active)

The book titled "Jesuit Slaveholding in Maryland, 1717-1838, by Thomas J. Murphy S.J. Murphy bemoans the apologetic manner in which most Catholic historians--the overwhelming majority of whom have been priests--have traditionally ignored the reality that for nearly two centuries, Jesuits in Maryland owned human beings. "Mainstream historians" Albert J. Raboteau and Eugene Genovese have remained almost entirely uninterested in the issue of Catholic slaveholding. Jesuits serving in Maryland in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries had their own unique motives for slaveholding. The community also had unique motives when, in 1838, it chose to abandon the institution of slavery, not by manumitting its 272 slaves, but by selling them to two sugar plantation owners in Louisiana. The Jesuits had rich philosophical and theological traditions to draw from when justifying their decision to use slave labor on their plantations. http://jsr.as.wvu.edu/2002/Reviews/Farrelly.htm

The Jesuit-owned Santa Cruz farm had 1,205 slaves. The Benedictines and the Carmelites also acquired properties and large numbers of slaves. "The monasteries are full of slaves," cried 19th century Brazilian abolitionist Joaquim Nabuco. Many of the cleric who protested the abuse of slaves had a "low regard for Africans" and "held that discipline, chastisement, and work were the only way to overcome the slaves' superstition, indolence, and lack of civility."
http://www.nathanielturner.com/religionandcolonialbrazil.htm

Do you still wish to maintain that Jesuits never owned slaves?

Sincerely,

Infosponge

Dear Infosponge;
Until I am able to view credible documentation to the contrary, I will continue to maintain my current position. I've taken the liberty of researching the Jesuit communities in Maryland and guess what? I could locate NO records which substantiate a claim that the Jesuits possessed slaves there at any time in the past.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Dear infosponge;
Also, I am not the collective conscious for the Society of Jesus, nor do I fully understand the Jesuit's position on slavery of that era. I do know what the Vatican's position was regarding slavery and I also know what the position of the great Jesuit Cardinal and theologian St. Robert Bellarmie was regarding slaves and slavery.

If certain Jesuit communities did in fact own slaves, then they were most assuredly in heresy with Roman Catholic teachings on the matter and as such, it is their souls which would now be in mortal peril and not mine. The Roman Catholic Church has always maintained the position that slavery must be a sin against God and therefore wrong. Thus far I've read no compelling evidence that goes counter to this teaching.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Infosponge]

Lamar,

Until I am able to view credible documentation to the contrary, I will continue to maintain my current position. I've taken the liberty of researching the Jesuit communities in Maryland and guess what? I could locate NO records which substantiate a claim that the Jesuits possessed slaves there at any time in the past.

So, you are saying Georgetown University is mistaken about the following?

"The Jesuit Plantation Project involves the conversion of the Maryland Province Archive to an electronic format. The archive contains over 200 years of personal, legal, and financial documents produced by the six Jesuit-owned plantations in Maryland. As an electronic archive project, the Jesuit Plantation Project is fully integrated with the American Studies Core Curriculum at Georgetown University. The students and faculty work collaboratively on the ongoing development of this site."

Then you might want to contact them and let them know how wrong they are before they waste anymore time on their project! Here is their contact info.

Inquiries should be directed to:
Center for Electronic Projects in American Culture Studies
c/o Randy Bass, English Department
Georgetown University
Washington, D.C. 20057
(202)687-4535
[email protected]

Sincerely,

Infosponge

 

[lamar]

Lamar,

Until I am able to view credible documentation to the contrary, I will continue to maintain my current position. I've taken the liberty of researching the Jesuit communities in Maryland and guess what? I could locate NO records which substantiate a claim that the Jesuits possessed slaves there at any time in the past.

So, you are saying Georgetown University is mistaken about the following?

"The Jesuit Plantation Project involves the conversion of the Maryland Province Archive to an electronic format. The archive contains over 200 years of personal, legal, and financial documents produced by the six Jesuit-owned plantations in Maryland. As an electronic archive project, the Jesuit Plantation Project is fully integrated with the American Studies Core Curriculum at Georgetown University. The students and faculty work collaboratively on the ongoing development of this site."

Then you might want to contact them and let them know how wrong they are before they waste anymore time on their project! Here is their contact info.

Inquiries should be directed to:
Center for Electronic Projects in American Culture Studies
c/o Randy Bass, English Department
Georgetown University
Washington, D.C. 20057
(202)687-4535
[email protected]

Sincerely,

Infosponge

Dear Infosponge;
I've already reviewed those particular documents my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Infosponge]

Lamar,

The Roman Catholic Church has always maintained the position that slavery must be a sin against God and therefore wrong. Thus far I've read no compelling evidence that goes counter to this teaching.
Your friend;
LAMAR

The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455.

"We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery,"
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/indig-romanus-pontifex.html

For what it's worth, I find it's not wise to use the words “always” and “never.”

Sincerely,

Infosponge

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HMM Lamar: I am a bit curious, how long would it take me to cover 200 years of business, personal, and legal documents of 6 Jesuit plantations IF I was actually reading them, not skimming over them.

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s. I have taken the liberty of sending the last post to Dr Bass for clarification. I would like to know about some of the subjects mentioned..

 

[cactusjumper]

This topic could use a peacful break, so here are some pictures I took last week on a pontoon ride up the river. The land critters were taken from a moving boat at around 150-200 yards:

I have a few bikini shots, but figure the blood preasure in this topic is already high enough.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Infosponge]

Cactusjumper,

Very nice pictures, thanks for sharing!

Sincerely,

Infosponge

 

[Infosponge]

Good morning,

Here is a link to the 200 years of personal, legal, and financial documents produced by the six Jesuit-owned plantations in Maryland.
http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/americanstudies/jpp/

Lamar claims these documents are not credible! Lamar, would you like to share with us why you believe these documents not to be credible?


If you have any questions, here is a link.
http://contact.georgetown.edu/index.cfm?Action=Mail&NetID=bassr

Sincerely,

Infosponge

 

[cactusjumper]

Infosponge,

I know you are addressing Lamar, but if you want to discuss Jesuit involvement with slavery in Maryland, IMHO, it should be moved to another topic.

We are discussing a specific area, Northern Mexico, and the possibility of Jesuit mining and treasure.

Let's all concede, individual Jesuits did whatever the deemed necessary, no matter what the Vatican ruled. In some cases, that may have included mining.
May is the key word here, because there is no evidence to prove they did any mining in Northern Mexico......that I have seen.

That's our topic, let's stick to it.

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Infosponge]

Cactusjumper,

I know you are addressing Lamar, but if you want to discuss Jesuit involvement with slavery in Maryland, IMHO, it should be moved to another topic.

I agree totally, I was going to suggest the same thing.

We are discussing a specific area, Northern Mexico, and the possibility of Jesuit mining and treasure.

If we are talking about Jesuit mining and treasure, could you please tell me why we shouldn't include South America? The same stories, rumors, legends, or as Lamar put it “conspiracy theories,” complete with documents and maps persist down there. Between the two continents there are a magnitude of stories, are we really expected to believe they are all false because there was a conspiracy which spread far and wide across two continents? I think this theory is much more believable, Lamar's conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory.

Let's all concede, individual Jesuits did whatever the deemed necessary, no matter what the Vatican ruled. In some cases, that may have included mining.
May is the key word here, because there is no evidence to prove they did any mining in Northern Mexico......that I have seen.

I believe these are the key words here. “that I have seen.”

Sincerely,

Infosponge

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Good afternoon: As stated, the questionnaire has been sent to Dr Bass, however it is University policy for them to forward all correspondence, it is not done directly to start with, a filtering process.. In any event has been sent and a confirmation returned.

Don Jose de La Mancha (Tropical Tramp)

 

[cactusjumper]

Infosponge,

"If we are talking about Jesuit mining and treasure, could you please tell me why we shouldn't include South America? The same stories, rumors, legends,...."

For the same reason we don't include China. We are debating Jesuit mining in Mexico. If you want to talk about Jesuit mining in South America, start a topic. Those who are interested will seek it out.

I often have the books that we discuss/quote here, and I notice you do as well. Just don't want you to think I am Googling the books and cutting and pasting the contents. I hate it when others do that. Di Peso's book is a little rare, and often expensive. Not everyone has a copy. At a guess, you and I may be the only two here.

Take care,

Joe