One of the great stories of
the Pacheco Family linage, is the mother of Ignacio Antonio Pacheco, Maria Carmen
Romero. She was the daughter of Nicolas Romero, son of Diego Romero, a
son of an Indigenous/Spanish frontiersman or woman, and Maria Higinia Perea (a Basque name), of the
Northern Sonora area in the late 1600's. They help found the area of
Santa Barbara, a rich ranching area that is a little south of what is now
Nogales.
The frontiersmen/women of the Romero family, apparently married indigenous people
of certain tribes in the area or prior to migrating to the area, hence their racial traits being outlined as mestizo. Diego Romero married a Bojorquez,
also mentioned as a mestizo. It could have also happened in the middle
part of the 15th century when numerous Spanish Males married "Aztec's" and
produced a new race of people, the Mexican(mestizo). So, it is
possible that the Romero males carried their proud heritage straight through
to their immigration to northern Sonora.
When their history is studied, it will show that they prospered in the
cattle industry, adopted numerous indigenous children, probably to protect
them from being killed, as was the deadly custom during the settler/tribal wars in
the middle 1700's. Diego Romero's home in "Santa Barbara" is a
national shrine. Nicolas Romero lived in the Tubac area during the
height of the settler/tribal wars.
So, the bloodlines of the Romero family are;
Spanish, Basque, Indigenous Tribal persons. It could be any tribe, as I
cannot find the records. (Ignacio
Romero was a witness, below, mentioned that he spoke the Pima language).
He was the son of José
Romero and Isabel de Figueroa.
The father Jose, was the brother of Diego Romero.
One of the remarkable "things",
is how the marriage/witness interaction between the Romero's-Pacheco's and
Bojorquez's, in that time period.
|
|
by
Donald T. Garate
Diego Romero was a
mestizo. He was highly regarded by his neighbors,
Spaniards, mestizos, and Indians alike. He and his
family were the first to set up permanent residence in
the upper Santa Cruz Valley.
That most likely happened
in the spring of 1727 when
Juan Bautista de Anza, the newly appointed captain
at the
Presidio of Fronteras permanently dispatched Diego’s
brother, José, to the San Luis Valley to protect Spanish
interests there.
Although the Romeros’
residence was located just south of what is today the
international border between Arizona and Sonora, Diego
found himself on the Arizona side of the line in search
of horses and mules with the “diamond pitchfork”
brand, illustrated above, the following spring
of 1728. A Yaqui Indian had delivered a letter to him
dated May 5, 1728 at the hacienda of San José de Jamaica
on the Río Moctezuma, two hundred and fifty miles
southeast of Diego’s newly established
Santa Barbara Ranch.
The letter was signed by
the Alcalde Mayor, or “lieutenant governor,” of Sonora,
Don
Gabriel Prudhom Butrón y Mujica, instructing Señor
Romero to take whatever number of horses and peones, or
“workers,” he needed to gather up the animals and return
them to Jamaica.
The lost livestock were evidently somewhere in the Santa
Ritas or the Catalina Mountains. Apaches had stolen them
from an estancia, or “ranch,” belonging to Don
Gregorio Álvarez Tuñón y Quirós in the Moctezuma
River Valley between Jamaica and what was then the
capital of Sonora, the town of San Juan Bautista. The
raid had occurred in the wee morning hours of Wednesday,
January 28, 1728 during the full moon.
Although they had
prevented many horses and mules from being stolen,
Yeguero, or the “keeper of the brood mares,” Juan
Francisco Villa and his Opata helpers, Visencio, Nicolás,
Andres, and Felipe, had been powerless to hold the
entire herd against the superior number of Apaches.
Several hundred animals had been lost that night.
Although Apaches were known to eat horsemeat and had
undoubtedly butchered some of the stolen livestock, the
count was far too large for them to have slaughtered
them all. The animals had been tracked to the
Pimería Alta north of Diego Romero’s place at Santa
Barbara where they were being loosely held. So, in
reality, Diego and his caballeros would not only be
gathering the herd, but would be stealing them back from
the Apaches – a task somewhat more hazardous than an
afternoon trail ride!
Apaches were always a problem in those years, and always
a serious danger to life and property. Regardless of how
we might view them in the 21st century, however, they
were a relatively mild danger compared to today.
Percentage wise there are twice as many of us killed on
the highways in our time as were killed by Apaches in
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The real danger
that Diego and his men had to fear in their day was
epidemics of a variety of diseases of which small pox
and measles were the most prominent.
Being relatively isolated
in the San Luis Valley they probably had not felt the
full wrath of the debilitating and mysterious plague
that had been devastating Sonora that winter. According
to one source, it had already killed “infinite numbers
of people.” It was raging so bad in eastern Sonora that
guards had been posted around the capital at San Juan
Bautista to warn travelers not to enter the infected
city.
In fact, it was this “infectious pestilence” that was
the immediate reason for Diego having received the
letter from the Alcalde Mayor to gather the diamond
pitchfork horses. Don Gregorio, their owner, had just
died in the epidemic. He was the former capitán
vitalicio, or “lifetime captain” of the presidio at
Fronteras. He had recently been removed from that
capacity and replaced by Captain Anza. Don Gregorio had
been ordered to stand trial in Mexico City for numerous
misuses of the presidial soldiers and the kings funds.
The trial had not gone
well for him and extremely heavy fines had been levied
against him. Even though he had managed to make himself
a very wealthy man by taking illegal advantage of his
commission for the nearly twenty-five years he had been
in charge at Fronteras, it appeared that the fines and
claims of other creditors would leave little for his
heirs.
Like other individuals who betray the public trust, Don
Gregorio’s intrigues eventually caught up to him and his
life ended in misery. He was barely fifty years old when
he contracted the deadly sickness in early March. His
first wife, María Magdalena de Miranda, and their small
children, Ignacio, Gregoria Andrea, and another little
sister, had all died several years previously. Gregorio
had remarried to a lady named María Margarita Ortiz
Cortez. They soon had a baby boy, who also died shortly
after birth. In just a few short years Margarita was
also dead, but she had left Don Gregorio two daughters,
Ana Victoria and María Martina. Although they were both
under the age of eight, they were his only living
descendants and heirs.
Don Gregorio had become so sick with the plague that he
called for a priest. Padre Juan de Echagoyen rode over
the mountain from Aconchi on March 21st and took his
confession and wrote down his last will and testament as
he dictated it. In the early morning hours of March
30th, Gregorio’s father-in-law, Antonio Ortiz Cortez,
sent a message to Nicolás de la Torre, deputy alcalde
mayor at San Juan Bautista, asking him to come quickly.
Don Nicolás mounted his horse and trotted the dozen or
so miles down the mountain to Jamaica, arriving there by
nine o’clock that morning. Don Gregorio was unable to
lift his head or speak and the signs of imminent death
were present. A priest, Juan Ignacio Rodriguez Soto, the
father-in-law, and two of Don Gregorio’s foremen were at
his bedside, where they all remained until he slipped
from life about five o’clock that afternoon.
The body was clothed in the habit of San Francisco
Xavier and carried on the shoulders of Don Gregorio’s
employees up the mountain to San Juan Bautista where it
was buried beneath the floor of the parish church the
next morning. Also on that morning, workers at the
hacienda at Jamaica opened the doors and windows of the
room where their boss had died to air it out. Various
perfumes that were thought to inhibit “pestilence” were
spread around the room. The workers also took the
mattresses and bed coverings outside in the sun to
remove the “infectious vapor that hung over the
deceased.” Alcalde Mayor Prudhom was notified at
Motepore of the death and was asked to come immediately
to take charge of the estate, which he did, riding via
Aconchi and over the mountain, bypassing the still
seriously plague-ridden capital.
It was his administering of the estate that had prompted
the letter to Diego Romero a month later. Although no
one was saying anything in public and, certainly,
everyone grieved for the two little daughters, secretly
most of the residents of Sonora were glad Don Gregorio
was gone. He had fought with most of his neighbors and
his stranglehold on the presidio and the local
government had caused misery for everyone. The fight to
have him removed from office had been carried on mainly
by the gachupines, or “peninsular-born Spaniards,” so
Diego, as a mestizo, had not been directly involved with
the litigation that ran from Sonora through Guadalajara
to Mexico City. He was good friends with Anza and
associates, however, and was highly esteemed by them.
There is no doubt where he placed his loyalty – and it
was not with Don Gregorio.
One can only imagine the
thoughts running through his mind as he and his helpers
were out making one of the first large horse drives in
what is today Arizona. A new day was dawning. There was
a young new captain in charge of protecting the
frontier. Settlement was truly getting underway in the
new and undeveloped valley of the upper Santa Cruz. Don
Gregorio would no longer cause anyone any trouble. And
here Diego was, being paid by his estate to gather up
his horses and mules! |
|
|
Personal Information |
|
Surname: Romero |
Given Name: María del
Carmen |
Sex: F |
Place of Birth:
|
Date of Birth:
|
Order:
|
Place of Death:
|
Date of Death:
|
Cause of Death:
|
Race or Tribe:
|
Residence: Tubac |
Title: Hija de Nicolás
Romero, Mujer de José Pacheco |
Place of Service:
|
Burial Place:
|
Translation: (Spanish) |
|
Personal Information |
|
Surname: Romero |
Given Name: Nicolás |
Sex: M |
Place of Birth:
|
Date of Birth:
|
Order:
|
Place of Death:
|
Date of Death:
|
Cause of Death:
|
Race or Tribe: Mestizo |
Residence: Buena Vista en el Valle de
San Luis; Tubac |
Title: Hijo de Diego Romero y María
Bojorquez; Marido de María Higinia Perea; Witness in the Pima uprising
investigation of 1754; Vecino de Tubac-1767 |
Place of Service:
|
Burial Place:
|
Translation: (Spanish) |
Notes: His first wife was
María Francisca Montoya. One of the first settlers in the San Luis
Valley in the early 1720's, he continued to operate the Santa Barbara
Ranch after his father, Diego Romero, died, until August of 1750, when
he sold it to Gabriel Antonio de Vildósola. Continuing to operate his
many other ranch properties after that, he and his second wife, Higinia Perea,
were still living in the Valley when the Pima uprising broke out in
November 1751. Having raised Pedro Chihuahua from the time he was nine
years old, they were very well-acquainted with him and considered him a
foster son, as he considered them to be his foster parents. Although
Pedro did not move in with them when he returned to the San Luis Valley
eight days before the rebellion, he moved in with José de Vera. José was
one of Nicolás' hired men and their houses adjoined each other. All were
fleeing together with their families to Terrenate when Pedro was
arrested. Nicolás was over fifty years of age at the time. He made the
following statements during the investigation of the uprising in 1754:
In all the years I have lived in this Pimería, communicating and dealing
with virtually every one of its missionaries, at no time have I ever
seen any of the alleged mistreatments. Nor have the Indians ever
complained of them. Those who have complained of such grievances after
the uprising do so that they might excuse themselves, in this manner, of
the atrocities they have committed.
Santa María Suamca, October 13, 1754
(AGI, Guadalajara 419, 3m-11, page 33
When the incident occurred (confrontation between Pedro Chihuahua and
Father Garrucho) I was at the Mission of Guevavi, where I had gone for
the fiesta of that village. However, I was not present for everything
that happened. I saw that Pedro de Chihuahua had come to Guevavi in
company with an alcalde of the village of Sáric. Captain Luis had sent
them to Father Garrucho with some Indians who were from Guevavi but had
been absent from the village quite some time. To make this delivery, the
alcalde of Sáric entered Father Garrucho’s room with Pedro de Chihuahua,
who was carrying his bastón in his hand. I am not aware of what took
place while they were in the room. There were other witnesses in the
room, however -- not only Father Juan Nentvig, but I think Father
Francisco Pauer was also there. I did not hear what Father Garrucho said
to Pedro de Chihuahua. However, I did see that when Pedro left the room
and entered the porch, or ramada, that he came out without his bastón.
The aforementioned alcalde of Sáric is who was carrying the said bastón.
Also, I and several other vecinos who had come to the fiesta heard
Father Garrucho say to Pedro as they left the room that he had acted
very badly in going about as a vagabond among the villages. He faulted
him for shirking his responsibilities as a Christian to his poor wife
who had been gravely ill for a long time, whom he had abandoned in the
San Luis Valley, where she died without him having returned to see her
or care for their children, who would have perished for want of
necessities had it not been for the charity of Nicolás Romero to succor
them.
Santa María Suamca, October 13, 1754
(AGI, Guadalajara 419, 3m-11, pages 3l0-31)
Nicolás' wife died before he did and he moved to Tubac when the Apache
threat became so great that Captain Juan Bautista de Anza asked all the
residents of the San Luis Valley to move there or to Tumacácori.
In the Tubac census of 1767 he is listed as having 3 daughters and 3
sons living in his household. |
Event Relationship
[57 Records] |
|
Event ID:
1523 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 01/04/1734 |
|
Event ID:
1535 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 04/07/1738 |
|
Event ID:
79 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 08/20/1741 |
|
Event ID:
80 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 08/20/1741 |
|
Event ID:
135 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 02/09/1744 |
|
Event ID:
165 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 07/31/1746 |
|
Event ID:
166 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 07/31/1746 |
|
Event ID:
174 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 05/16/1747 |
|
Event ID:
175 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 05/16/1747 |
|
Event ID:
176 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 05/16/1747 |
|
Event ID:
177 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 05/16/1747 |
|
Event ID:
178 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 05/16/1747 |
|
Event ID:
179 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 05/16/1747 |
|
Event ID:
180 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 05/16/1747 |
|
Event ID:
181 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 05/16/1747 |
|
Event ID:
187 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 06/21/1747 |
|
Event ID:
234 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 07/20/1749 |
|
Event ID:
244 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 02/24/1750 |
|
Event ID:
261 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 09/29/1750 |
|
Event ID:
262 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 09/29/1750 |
|
Event ID:
335 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 05/24/1757 |
|
Event ID:
360 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 11/15/1745 |
|
Event ID:
369 |
Relationship: Father |
Event Date: 05/03/1746 |
|
Event ID:
381 |
Relationship: Father |
Event Date: 03/06/1749 |
|
Event ID:
389 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 09/29/1749 |
|
Event ID:
452 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 09/15/1760 |
|
Event ID:
453 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 12/12/1760 |
|
Event ID:
620 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 02/09/1732 |
|
Event ID:
625 |
Relationship: Father |
Event Date: 01/29/1737 |
|
Event ID:
725 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 11/01/1744 |
|
Event ID:
834 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 06/28/1755 |
|
Event ID:
851 |
Relationship: Father |
Event Date: 06/29/1754 |
|
Event ID:
916 |
Relationship: Father |
Event Date: 01/25/1744 |
|
Event ID:
933 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 06/04/1743 |
|
Event ID:
944 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 04/05/1744 |
|
Event ID:
962 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 06/04/1743 |
|
Event ID:
1009 |
Relationship: Poseedor |
Event Date: 08/15/1762 |
|
Event ID:
1016 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 02/05/1762 |
|
Event ID:
1082 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 12/13/1754 |
|
Event ID:
1083 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 12/15/1754 |
|
Event ID:
1101 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 05/15/1760 |
|
Event ID:
1120 |
Relationship: Poseedor |
Event Date: 04/07/1760 |
|
Event ID:
1121 |
Relationship: Poseedor |
Event Date: 04/07/1760 |
|
Event ID:
1132 |
Relationship: Poseedor |
Event Date: 03/21/1761 |
|
Event ID:
1172 |
Relationship: Poseedor |
Event Date: 04/11/1753 |
|
Event ID:
1178 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 09/21/1756 |
|
Event ID:
1197 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 11/02/1758 |
|
Event ID:
1244 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 05/17/1728 |
|
Event ID:
1245 |
Relationship: Father |
Event Date: 05/28/1730 |
|
Event ID:
1270 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 02/18/1756 |
|
Event ID:
1336 |
Relationship: Father |
Event Date: 05/17/1728 |
|
Event ID:
1574 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 03/12/1747 |
|
Event ID:
1585 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 11/07/1761 |
|
Event ID:
1667 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 01/12/1748 |
|
Event ID:
1714 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 05/12/1758 |
|
Event ID:
3134 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 03/24/1737 |
|
Event ID:
7642 |
Relationship: Widowed Resident |
Event Date: 04/02/1767 |
|
Personal Information |
|
Surname: Romero |
Given Name: Diego |
Sex: M |
Place of Birth:
|
Date of Birth: Probably in the 1690's |
Order:
|
Place of Death: En su casa de Santa
Barbara |
Date of Death: 05/09/1739 |
Cause of Death:
|
Race or Tribe: Mestizo |
Residence: Basochuca; Corodéguachi;
Santa Barbara |
Title: Marido de María Bojorquez;
Hermano de José Romero |
Place of Service:
|
Burial Place: Suamca-in the church |
Translation: (Spanish) |
Notes: "Diego Romero died
on May 9, [1739] at his house in Santa Barbara and he was buried in the
church of Santa María [Suamca] next to the holy water basin. Ignacio
Xavier Keller, Minister of Doctrine for His Majesty."
|
|
Event Relationship
[8 Records] |
|
Event ID:
619 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 11/07/1732 |
View Document A |
|
|
Event ID:
1321 |
Relationship: Poseedor |
Event Date: 07/07/1729 |
View Document A |
|
|
Event ID:
1823 |
Relationship: Deceased |
Event Date: 05/09/1739 |
View Document A |
|
|
Event ID:
4329 |
Relationship: Godfather |
Event Date: 02/09/1716 |
|
|
|
Event ID:
4330 |
Relationship: Father |
Event Date: 12/02/1714 |
|
|
|
Event ID:
4331 |
Relationship: Godfather and Paternal
Grandfather |
Event Date: 08/26/1725 |
|
|
|
Event ID:
4332 |
Relationship: Godfather and Uncle |
Event Date: 08/26/1725 |
|
|
|
Event ID:
4333 |
Relationship: Witness |
Event Date: 06/01/1722 |
|
|
|
|
|
Surname: Romero |
Given Name: Ignacio |
Sex: M |
Place of Birth: |
Date of Birth:
01/01/1713 |
Order: |
Place of Death: |
Date of Death: |
Cause of Death: |
Race or Tribe: Mestizo |
Residence: Suamca |
Title: Hijo de José
Romero e Isabel de Figueroa; Marido de Andrea
Bojorquez; Witness in the Pima uprising investigation
of 1754 |
Place of Service: |
Burial Place: |
Translation: (Spanish) |
Notes: Like
many of the Romeros, Ignacio had lived most all of his
thirty years in the San Luis Valley. He was the son of Jose Romero, brother of Diego Romero.
He was married
to Andrea Bojorquez, and their three children, who
fled with them to Terrenate after the outbreak of the
Pima uprising of 1751, were fourteen, ten, and four
years old. The two oldest had been baptized at Suamca
by Father Keller. The youngest was baptized by Father
Garrucho at Guevavi. Father Garrucho had also buried
two of their children in the church at Guevavi. A
deputy justicia mayor, it was Ignacio Romero who
should have issued the warrant for Pedro Chihuahua's
arrest, if one was to be issued. He felt that the
soldiers had authority over him, however, in a state
of war. He pointed Pedro out to them in the large
crowd that was fleeing to Terrenate, but he did not
know then and did not find out until after the
execution why the arrest was taking place. Ignacio was
dispatched to Terrenate by Captain Menocal and was not
present at the execution. He was not convinced of
Pedro's guilt and claimed that their children were
playing together when the arrest took place. His son,
Cristóbal Ivislao, and Pedro's son, José Cristóbal
were the same age. We do not have Ignacio's exact
birthdate but he was over forty in December, 1753. He
made the following statement concerning the Pima
uprising during the investigation of 1754:
Luis arrived at the house of the Padre who had been
advised of his arrival by a servant. The Padre was
occupied with me. I had gone there for a particular
negotiation and was making the same in the presence of
the said Francisco Gil, domestic of the Father.
Because of this the Father told the servant to tell
Luis to wait a little and then he could come in. While
Luis was waiting Father Keller told me that he did not
want to speak to that Indian without witnesses, and
this was why he was detaining him. Then Luis entered.
He greeted the Father, who returned his greeting and
asked where he was going. Luis said, ?On a campaign
with Captain Don Santiago Ruíz de Ael.? The Father
asked if he had been directed or commanded to do so,
to which he responded, ?No.? The Father added that he
also knew nothing, and that the captain had left a day
and a half before, but that he had taken cattle to
feed the Indians who went as auxiliaries from Suamca,
and would, thus, not be able to travel very fast.
Because of this, if Luis knew the road he could take a
short cut and catch the captain in Bavisi or Quiburi.
To this, Luis responded that his people did not come
with him to Suamca, but that he had come only in the
company of Captain Luis of Pitic and a boy servant of
his. Then the Father charged Luis to pay close
attention, and said that if he went on the campaign,
the Father did not want him bringing testimony against
his neophytes, saying that they were in league with
the Apaches like he had falsely done against Captain
Caballo before the Lord Examiner, who had ordered
Captain Don Francisco Bustamante to interrogate him.
That resulted in charges and a sentence being passed
against Captain Caballo, for whom Father Keller had
testified. The Father told him that he should not be
of bad heart, stirring up the Spaniards against the
Pimas, or the Pimas against the soldiers. This was not
the way of good captains, nor those that have a good
heart. Hearing this, Luis twice lied to Father Keller,
saying that it was not so -- he had never done such a
thing against Captain Caballo. Upon hearing this, the
Father did not treat him like a dog, or say anything
to infuriate him, or disturb him, but with total
control, responded: ?My son, I have the letters in my
possession that were written for you by José Ignacio
Salazar to Don Miguel de Urrea wherein everything I
have said is written. Nevertheless, I lie and you tell
the truth.? Then the father added, ?Listen, My Son, if
you want to go on the campaign, do not bring testimony
against my children, because I will defend them.
Look.
Do you know this Spaniard that is sitting here
(pointing to me)?? ?Yes,? he replied. ?And,
do you know,? added the father, ?that he understands
the Pima language well?? To this Luis also
replied, ?Yes.? Then the Father said, ?Well, look. I
detained this Spaniard, who came here on business, as
a witness, knowing that you would deny what was said
here and bring testimony against me like you did
Captain Caballo.? To this, Luis made no reply. Then
the father also accused him of consenting to the many
robberies of the Pimas in the west, especially at
Sicurisuta, the hacienda of the heirs of Captain Anza.
He said that good captains who have good hearts do not
consent to such things, and that the Father cannot
support him when he says he is Captain General but
consents to such acts. He said that he cannot indulge
Indians who claim the title of hunter and walk through
the mountains and across the valleys killing cattle
that belong to another person without even asking.
And, in case they are unable to ask the owner, the
mountains have deer and rabbits and other animals that
they can hunt. They do not have to maintain themselves
by stealing. The Father also made one other accusation
in which he said that if Luis wanted to go on the
campaign like he was, carrying a leather vest, musket,
shoulder belt, sword, and Spanish arms that he did not
know how to use, it would just serve more to embarrass
him than cause damage to the enemy. The Father further
asked how many times he had gone on the campaign being
supplied by the Fathers with food, horses, and other
equipment and everything necessary for the fight
against the Apaches, only to return when the supplies
were used up, while spreading falsehoods and
accusations against his own people. Nothing else was
done or said by the Father that would hinder his
having said everything in front of witnesses and
having detained me. He then also said to Luis, ?If
your coming here was so that you could go with Captain
Don Santiago, traveling in his company, then it is not
your duty to command, but his. And likewise with my
neophytes, only he should command them. Indeed, both
yours and mine should go subject to Spanish arms on
all campaigns. However, it is not clear to me who has
command in the North of your arms, which are the bow
and arrow. Clearly, in the past there was no one to
take command, but now I do not know who it is because
of the division which you see in your wanting to be in
charge of everything.? This is all of what I heard
Padre Keller say to Luis of Sáric. I would add that
if this is why Luis was resentful, it was because he
was admonished about his faults, or I suspect because
they still have his mischievous letters on file, or
because during the conversation the Father neither
asked him to have a seat or gave him any chocolate as
they were accustomed to doing for him in other places.
Certainly his resentment was not caused by the Father
having said that he was a dog, coyote, or a woman, or
anything even similar. Indeed, nothing like that was
said. This has always been my declaration to Lord
Governor Parrilla during the repeated times his
secretary, Peralta, has interrogated me. Santa María
de Suamca, October 14, 1754 (AGI, Guadalajara 419,
3m-11, pages 40-43)
|
|
|
|
Personal ID:
542 |
Given Name:
José |
Surname:
Garrucho |
Relationship:
Priest |
|
Personal ID:
783 |
Given Name:
Ignacio |
Surname:
Romero |
Relationship:
Witness |
|
Personal ID:
914 |
Given Name:
Juan José |
Surname:
Pacheco |
Relationship:
Husband |
|
Personal ID:
915 |
Given Name:
María de los Santos |
Surname: Gómez |
Relationship:
Wife |
|
Personal ID:
916 |
Given Name:
Francisco |
Surname:
Pacho |
Relationship:
Witness |
|
|
POSSIBLE FAMILY LINKS TO DIEGO ROMERO;
Born 1689.
20 NOV 1689 |
San Felipe, Guanajuato,
Mexico |
24 APR 1657 |
El Sagrario, Tulancingo,
Hidalgo, Mexico |
Antonio ROMERO MONDRAGON - Vital Records
Index / ME
Gender: M Birth/Christening: 17 Sep 1621 Queretaro, Queretaro, Mexico
Parents: |
|
|
|
Father: Diego
ROMERO*Grandson had name of Diego. |
|
Mother: Maria
MONDRAGON |
Diego Phelipe ROMERO DE ORTEGA - Vital Records Index
Gender: M Birth/Christening: 19 May 1594 Cuauhtemoc, Distrito Federal,
Mexico
Parents: |
|
|
|
Father: Alonso
Martin ROMERO |
|
Mother: Hieronima
DE ORTEGA |
Alonso Martin Romero - International
Genealogical Index / ME
Gender: Male Birth: About 1559 Cuauhtemoc,Didtrito Federal, , , Mexico
No mexico parents found.
Maybe from Spain---
None Found that matches exactly. |