Background

Before we address the events that took place after Morlete apprehended Castaño, it is useful to review the conditions that existed in Almadén prior to July 27 of 1590, when its inhabitants abandoned it. Almadén had been founded in 1585 by order of Gov. Luis de Carvajal as an outpost intended to prevent incursions into his Nuevo Reino de León by soldiers from Nueva Vizcaya, who had been entering that province to take Indians.⁵ Before 1585 there were three European settlements in Carvajal’s territory: Cueva de León, Léon, and San Luis. However, all three were destroyed in 1587 by Indian uprisings, which forced their settlers to abandon them and to seek refuge in Saltillo, a village founded earlier by Alberto del Canto on behalf of Nueva Vizcaya but incorporated in Nuevo Reino de León by Carvajal in 1581.⁶

Soon after the destruction of the settlements, Carvajal went to Almadén to hide from the persecution of Viceroy Álvaro Manrique de Zúñiga, Marqués de Villamanrique (Villamanrique), who had tried to jail him on two occasions.⁷ However, in late 1588, a captain of Villamanrique arrived in Almadén with many soldiers, apprehended the governor and took him to Mexico City where he was first put in the jail of the Court and then transferred to the Inquisition. There he was subject to a proceso, or trial, in which he was found guilty of covering up for his Judaizing relatives. Sentenced to exile in an Auto-da-Fe that took place on February 24, 1590, Carvajal was sent back to jail, where he died a year later.⁸ Before Carvajal was taken prisoner in Almadén, he had named Gaspar Castaño de Sosa as his lieutenant in that part of Nuevo Reino de León.⁹ Many people were living there, among whom were some of the colonizers that Carvajal had recruited in Spain. The vecinos of Almadén were engaged in mining, agriculture, and in raising cattle. Castaño’s captains and soldiers continued to provide protection from the Chichimeca Indians living nearby who would attack the them whenever they could.¹⁰ These attacks invariably resulted in punitive Spanish entradas (incursions into Indian territory) against the Indians. Sometimes the incursions would be made without a reason. Either way, like other soldiers in the northern frontiers of New Spain, Castaño’s soldiers would, with or without a reason, and often without permission from him, take Indians prisoner to sell their services to increase their meager salaries.

In January of 1590 Villamanrique was replaced as viceroy of New Spain because of the many complaints about him received in Spain. Confined to house arrest while his actions as viceroy of New Spain were examined, Villamanrique sent Luis de Velasco II, the new viceroy, the required Advertimientos, mainly recommendations and warnings about the governance of New Spain. One important item in the list referred to the people that Carvajal had left in Almadén. Noting that Carvajal had been sentenced by the Inquisition, Villamanrique stated that

Y ahora es entendido que con estar preso allí ha dado poder a un Gaspar Castaño para que sea su teniente de gobernador, y ha nombrado otros ministros, que todos han seguido sus pasos y están en aquel sitio de Caula [Coahuila] y Almadén con más de sesenta soldados forajidos delincuentes y homicidas que ni tienen justicia ni doctrina y están alzados sin conocer a Dios ni al Rey, y entran la tierra adentro y sacan indios mansos y los venden en Mazapil, Saltillo, Sombrerete y toda aquella tierra. […] V.S. proveerá en el castigo de los unos y de los otros.¹¹

In another document he repeated the news about the appointment of Castaño as his lieutenant, adding that: “Y hanme informado que tiene pasado el derecho de la gobernación a otro. Es negocio que pide remedio”.¹² The new viceroy did not need encouragement to act against Castaño. He had been present at the Auto-da-Fe where Carvajal had been sentenced and knew well that many of his colonizers were New Christians of Jewish descent. More importantly, Velasco’s brother-in-law, Diego de Ibarra, a past governor of Nueva Vizcaya, had told him about the territorial conflicts that he had with Carvajal and his lieutenants.

Heeding the advice of his brother-in-law and of Villamanrique and being told that Castaño had expressed a keen desire to be given Nuevo México, Viceroy Velasco and his advisers devised and executed a plan to destroy Castaño and to disband his soldiers in Almadén. The plan consisted in inviting Castaño to Mexico City to discuss the details of his journey to Nuevo México. This, Velasco knew, would entice Castaño to accept the invitation. However, the real purpose was to imprison him, because, as he told the king in a letter dated October 8, 1590, what he wanted was to “desbaratar esta gente de allí, o la mayor parte de ella, quitándoles los caudillos y capitánes que los bandean”.¹³ As discussed in more detail later, Velasco was asking permission from the king to execute the plan, even though he had already carried it out.

Indeed, Velasco’s invitation letter was delivered in May of 1590 to Castaño, in Almadén, by Capt. Juan Morlete.¹⁴ The exchange that ensued between Castaño and Morlete is remarkable. Obviously Castaño remembered well the invitation that Villamanrique had sent to Carvajal in 1586,¹⁵ and correctly guessed Velasco’s intentions. Nevertheless, he tried to excuse himself arguing that he had no money to go to Mexico City, nor clothes to wear before the viceroy, arguments that were set aside when Morlete offered to lend him money for both purposes. This forced Castaño to accept the invitation. However, a reversal took place the day of departure because the vecinos protested vehemently the possible departure of their leader, saying, among other things, that they would abandon Almadén if he left. Although false, their protestation succeeded because, seeing the commotion, Morlete gave up his attempt to convince Castaño to go to Mexico City. For his part, Castaño proposed to send a letter to the viceroy explaining his actions and asking him for instructions as to how to make the journey. Morlete agreed to this and allowed one of his soldiers, Alonso Ruiz, to take Castaño’s letter to the viceroy. However, before leaving Almadén, on June 24, Morlete supposedly warned Castaño not to go to Nuevo México.

Of course, the decision to go to Nuevo México had already been taken and the preparations for the journey had already begun. Castaño and his group had learned what had happened to Carvajal and were, with good reason, afraid of what might happen to them. Also, the invitation letter made Castaño worry even more. Furthermore, the viceroy’s letter implied that he approved Castaño’s journey. Therefore, Castaño decided to leave sooner than originally intended, ordering that the preparations for the journey be expedited. Indeed, only one month after Morlete left Almadén, all the European inhabitants abandoned it, taking with them their possessions, cattle, provisions, and, importantly, the Caja Real,¹⁶ a clear signal that they intended to settle elsewhere. An Indian who saw the departure said: “y le vio este testigo […] salir de esta villa con muchas carretas, con las cuales se había encaminado hacia donde se pone el sol y nunca mas regresaron”.¹⁷

The viceroy’s actions

Although Almadén was abandoned, not all the inhabitants joined Castaño in his journey. Among those who did not was Diego Ramírez Barrionuevo, an important official under Carvajal since 1580. By the mid-1580s Ramírez had becomefactor (agent) of the Nuevo Reino de León, and as such he carried one of the three keys to the Caja Real (also known as the Caja de Tres Llaves). The other two keys were in possession of Melchor de Paiba, the treasurer of Nuevo Reino de León, and of Castaño. For some unknown reason, differences between Castaño and Ramírez occurred soon after the group left Almadén. It is possible that Ramírez disagreed with Castaño’s decision to go to Nuevo México. In any event he left the group and went to Mazapil, where he told Morlete what had happened in Almadén. It appears that both Ramírez and Morlete wrote letters to the viceroy describing what Castaño had done.

The news reached the viceroy sometime in September of 1590. Sensing the urgency of the situation, Velasco met with his brother-in-law Diego de Ibarra and with Rodrigo del Río Losa, both past governors of Nueva Vizcaya, to decide what to do. Two issues were at hand: Castaño had foiled the viceroy’s plans to jail him and had left Almadén without receiving the viceroy’s instructions. Although Velasco was probably incensed, he realized that Castaño’s journey to Nuevo México provided him with a stronger reason to punish him than Villamanrique’s fabrications.

The second issue facing Velasco was to decide whether he should inform the king of those events, and if so, what to tell him. In the first place, he had followed Villamanrique’s advice and had tried, without consulting the king, to destroy what remained of Nuevo Reino de León, a province that the king had awarded to Carvajal and to one successor chosen by him, perhaps Castaño himself. Eliminating that political entity might not please the king. Secondly, Velasco had to protect himself from any unforeseen consequence resulting from Castaño’s entrada. Below we discuss the two actions taken by Viceroy Velasco in response to the news about Almadén.

Instructions to Morlete

On the first day of October of 1590 the viceroy sent a letter to Juan Morlete in which he ordered him to do several tasks.¹⁸ In essence, the document, called here the Instrucción a Morlete, ordered him to follow Castaño’s path into Nuevo México and not to return to New Spain until finding him, apprehending him and his principal captains, and taking them to Mexico City, where they could be tried for their offenses. That was the main purpose of the order. However, the document is couched with such rectitude and unblemished rhetoric that it is easy to understand why, upon reading it years later, the king ordered that the viceroy should be commended for having issued it.¹⁹

Indeed, the Instrucción told Morlete to confront Castaño and his principal captains in a gentle manner, but that, nevertheless, he should not trust them: “advirtiendo siempre a que los traeis presos y que de su mala conciencia no os podeis fiar”;²⁰ that he should set free the Indians that Castaño had supposedly captured; that in his return he should treat the women in Castaño’s group with dignity and respect and so on. There is not one item in the list that could be criticized by anyone who believed that the viceroy’s charges against Castaño were based on facts.

The document refers to certain crimes that, the viceroy alleged, were committed by Castaño. In short, the presumed crimes were that he had acted against the orders of both the viceroy and the king, and that he had committed excesses against the Indians. Both accusations will be considered later in more detail. It should nevertheless be noted that the supposed crimes were stated as facts, not as charges requiring proof. It is also necessary to ask where the information about the supposed crimes originate. As for having entered Nuevo México without his permission, there is no doubt that the source was the letters that Ramírez and Morlete sent to the viceroy. However, the charge that Carvajal and his lieutenants mistreated the Indians were first made by Villamanrique in a letter he wrote to the king in 1586;²¹ he repeated them in his Advertimientos to Velasco, who included them in his Instrucción to Morlete to add support to his desire to eliminate Castaño.

Velasco’s letter to the king²²

One week after having sent his order to Morlete, the viceroy sent a letter to the king informing him about the problems that Castaño and his people were causing in Almadén.²³ The letter outlines the two plans that Velasco and his advisors had devised to eliminate Castaño and to disband his people in Almadén. The first was to invite Castaño to go to Mexico City to consult with him on how the journey to Nuevo México should be made, although the purpose was, as we have seen, to imprison him. In any event, the letter implicitly stated that the viceroy agreed that Castaño should go to that province, but wanted to iron out the details because, according to him, “en [su] ausencia se puede mal tomar asiento en negocio de tanta consideración”.²⁴ Eliminating a Crown officer that held a position sanctioned by the king was not a trivial action, even by a viceroy.²⁵ It is therefore remarkable that Velasco was seeking approval from the king for a plan to eliminate Castaño which he had already executed and, furthermore, knew it had failed.

The second plan was to give Castaño and his people a comisión to make the journey to Nuevo México because, as he said in the same letter, “de ella resultará echar esta gente de donde puedan ser muy perjudiciales y a parte donde toparen poblaciones de indios y minas o el tiempo los gastarán”.²⁶ This shows that Velasco was willing to let Castaño go to Nuevo México to “waste” him. However, it should be remembered that the letter was written after he was informed that Castaño and his people had begun that journey more than two months earlier. A possible explanation for that statement is that Velasco did not know what would happen to them there. In any event, to support the second plan he also stated that:

Solo digo que la jornada del Nuevo México, para los que tienen alguna noticia de las cosas antiguas deste reino y de jornadas qu a lo de Cibola y Culiacán y Sinaloa se han hecho, es de poca importancia por los pocos indios que hay. Y así ninguno que tenga caudal lo querrá emplear allí, y sin el si no fuese a mucha costa de la Real Hacienda de V.M., no habrá quien de ello se encargue.²⁷

This is patently wrong. Velasco knew that at least two wealthy Spaniards who lived in New Spain at that time wanted to spend their capital in Nuevo México. In fact, one of them, Juan Bautista de Lomas y Colmenares, had for some time been pressing the Crown that he be awarded that province and Villamanrique had endorsed the petition. However, the petition was stalled in Madrid. More significantly, months before Velasco wrote his October 8, 1590 letter to the king, he had been negotiating that award with Francisco de Urdiñola.²⁸

One final point about this remarkable letter by the viceroy: although signed a week after the Instrucción to Morlete was issued, it reached Spain more than a year later. And when it arrived, no one, including the king, connected it with Velasco’s Instrucción, which the king had liked so much. As described later, it took an additional year before Phillip II would react to Velasco’s actions against Castaño.

Other events

It is possible that the Instrucción was given to Morlete in Mexico City the day it was signed, but the first time he referred to it was on October 28, in Mazapil. That day he named a scribe who was to record certain autos²⁹ related to his commission and stated that he had recruited 40 soldiers to accompany him in Castaño’s pursuit. It is likely that he and his soldiers departed soon after that date. Among them were Juan Gómez, a Franciscan friar, Diego Ramírez Barrionuevo, Domingo Martínez de Cearreta, his son Pedro, and Agustín de Lesaca.³⁰ On the road, Morlete dictated several other statements, including one, discussed later, that was to play an important role in the demise of Castaño.

At about the same time that the viceroy sent his Instrucción to Morlete, Castaño and his people crossed the Río Bravo and were searching for a river that he thought would lead them to the Indian pueblos. The distance between the two groups was not as large as the four months between their different dates of departure seem to indicate. The reason was that Castaño had spent more than two months waiting for the return of his emissaries to the viceroy. In any event, it was not until the following Spring that Morlete caught up with Castaño.

Castaño’s trek through the Indian pueblos in Nuevo México is described in a lengthy document -usually referred to as Castaño’s Memoria- that tells the day-to-day events that took place between July 27, 1590, when the group led by Castaño left Almadén, and the day when Morlete arrived in Santo Domingo and took him prisoner.³¹ Although the date of his arrival is not mentioned in the Memoria, another document states that it was Holy Week Monday, or April 8, 1591 in the Gregorian calendar, then in use.³²

The Memoria has received considerable attention and needs not to be considered here, although it should be mentioned that it was presumably written, as its first page implies, to document the journey to Nuevo México, as required by the 1573 Leyes para Nuevos Descubrimientos,³³ not to make Castaño appear better in the eyes of the viceroy, as stated by H&R.³⁴

Return to New Spain

In his Instrucción to Morlete, Viceroy Velasco told him that: “Y como he dicho, el principal fin de esta jornada es que cese la de Gaspar Castaño, convendrá que no os volvais sin traerlo en vuestra compañía y los que con él van”.³⁵ Of course, women had to be treated better: “y si con los delincuentes van mujeres, procurareis su buen tratamiento y comodidad y la honestidad de sus personas”.³⁶ In other words, Morlete was ordered to take everybody that had gone to Nuevo México with Castaño. According to the Memoria, the group that left Almadén consisted of more than 160 individuals. This number included men, women, children, and servants, both European and Indian. Supposedly, Morlete took with him every member of the colony when he left Nuevo México, although at least two servant Indians remained behind. The document also mentions the deaths of two or three individuals in Castaño’s group, including a child. Hence, if Morlete did as told, the number of people going with him back to New Spain was about 200, including the fifty Europeans that had joined him in Mazapil. Clearly, the return journey could not be started without a great deal of preparation.

A most important item in the list of things that had to be done was gathering enough food for a trip that would surely last a few months. However, the Europeans had little of their own. Fortunately, the Pueblo Indians cooperated, probably after forceful coercion, and provided them with maize, turkeys, and other provisions. To carry these, Morlete ordered that Castaño’s carretas be repaired. Noting that the Caja Real that Castaño had taken from Almadén was rather large, he ordered that the few things that it contained be placed in a smaller one.

According to one of the soldiers of Morlete, the preparations took forty days,³⁷ which means that the contingent left Santo Domingo mid-May of 1591. Twenty years later the journey from that pueblo to Mexico City would normally require no more than three months, but, on this occasion, the road was still unknown. By July 10, nearly 40 days after departure, the group had traveled a mere 40 leagues. The reason for the slow progress was that they would have to make camp and wait while scouts searched for places where the carretas could pass. The record shows that they were detained several times during the first part of the route. In each of these, Morlete labored to fulfill another requirement stipulated in the Instrucción.

Morlete’s diligencias

As noted earlier, the Instrucción also required Morlete to obtain a certain Información about Castaño. Customarily, an Información consisted then of sworn affidavits presented before a Crown officer by witnesses responding to a number of questions posed to them that would normally be prepared ahead of time. Even before reaching Santo Domingo, Morlete had obtained some of the required information and had dictated the initial part of a long document that mainly consists of several sworn testimonies obtained from July 10 to August 24, 1591. A list of the main contents of the document appears on its cover.³⁸ For simplicity we denote the document as Morlete’s Diligencias.

On March 5, 1591, while still in pursuit of Castaño, Morlete decided it was time to start obtaining the information that Velasco had asked for. For that purpose, he dictated a lengthy statement that included a list of charges against Castaño. Although this section was followed by the testimonies of the witnesses, it does not contain the questions to be asked of them, as it was customary in sixteenth century Informaciones. The section begins with an introduction and is followed by a series of accusations against Castaño. We treat the two parts separately. The first begins with the following:

A 5 días del mes de enero de 1591 años, el capitán Juan Morlete, juez comisario por el Rey nuestro señor, contra todas las personas que sin orden del señor virrey, gobernador y capitán general de esta Nueva España han hecho presas en indios e indias naturales y hécholos esclavos y sacádoles de sus tierras y naturaleza y vendídolos, y se han entrado a las provincias del Nuevo México y gente vestida, cuya conquista y población por S.M. está particularmente cometida a su señoría del dicho virrey, dijo que por cuanto en cumplimiento de su comisión pagó de la Real Hacienda cuarenta soldados y con ellos va a cumplir lo contenido en ella. Y para que conste de los delitos y excesos que Gaspar Castaño y los capitanes, soldados, y otras personas que con el han entrado a las dichas provincias del Nuevo México han hecho que así en lo tocante a las dichas presas como a la dicha entrada.³⁹

This statement is remarkable on several grounds. First, Morlete identifies himself as a Juez Comisario, but Velasco’s Instrucción does not refer to him as such, calling him instead Captain Morlete. It is possible that he had been appointed Juez Comisario on another occasion, but no evidence for such appointment has so far surfaced. Truthful or not, Morlete thought of himself as such. Given that the title does not define the functions of such a judge, it is pertinent to ask what did Morlete think his role was, and what did the viceroy asked him to do. The second part of the question is easier to answer: In addition to imprison Castaño, Velasco had ordered Morlete to obtain an information about Castaño “para saber el intento de su jornada y quienes fueron los movedores y con que comisión y consentimiento la han hecho”.⁴⁰ It is evident that this was an investigative task.

The only material we have got to answer the first part of the question are Morlete’s actions and words, as described in his Diligencias. The paragraph transcribed above shows that he was not conducting an investigation, as the Instrucción ordered him to, but a prosecution against certain persons.⁴¹ The charges against Castaño, some of which are described later, lead to the same conclusion. In other words, Morlete thought that his tasks were to prosecute Castaño and his companions and to prove their guilt on every charge he listed in the document.

As it turns out, the paragraphs that follow the charges listed in the initial section of the document also hint at Morlete’s prosecutorial actions. Although involving legal terms no longer in use, they are pertinent to this discussion and are therefore repeated here.

Y el dicho capitán en cumplimiento de su comisión haga las prevenciones y diligencias que convengan y que conste de la justificación que en ello tiene, mandó hacer y fulminar cabeza de proceso que se reciba la información que sobre ello hubiere.⁴²

The dictionary of the Academia de la Lengua Española⁴³ defines fulminar as “acusar a alguien en proceso formal o sin él y condenarlo”, and Cabeza de Proceso as “auto de oficio que provee el juez para la investigación del delito y de los delincuentes”.⁴⁴ Given Morlete’s actions and statements, we believe that his role in obtaining testimonies against Castaño was much closer to that of a prosecutor than that of an investigator. But, if so, why would Morlete disregard Velasco’s Instrucción and adopt an antagonistic attitude toward Castaño? One possible reason is that, as stated by seventeenth century historian Alonso de León, Morlete “[fue] hombre belicoso y no de buen natural [… y] fue fama que, envidioso de su bien, quiso tomar venganza de él”.⁴⁵ Although León does not say what caused Morlete to want revenge, it is possible that Castaño’s deception in Almadén may have been a cause. Another reason, described later, was political.

Let us now consider the charges against Castaño. In addition to the main charges, the Cabeza de Proceso also lists several others. Here are some of them.

Teniendo nueva que […] Villamanrique le enviaba a prender […] se fortificó e hizo una casa fuerte con troneras y piezas de artillería diciendo que allí se había de resistir y defender juntando y apellidando [apelando] gente para ello.⁴⁶

This charge does not appear in Velasco’s orders.

Y ahora, últimamente, habiéndole mandado […] don Luis de Velasco […] que por ningún caso hiciese las dichas presas y enviado para el efecto al capitán Juan Morlete para que de su parte le amonestase y apercibiese que no las hiciese […] lo cual el dicho Gaspar Castaño consintió […] Y después acayendo contra ello los ha mandado hacer y hecho repartido y vendido los dichos naturales.⁴⁷

We know that Velasco sent a letter to Castaño inviting him to go to Mexico City to discuss the details of his journey to Nuevo México, and we also know that Morlete delivered it. However, that letter made no reference to the taking of Indians. As stated before, we believe that this charge was added after Castaño left Almadén to strengthen the case against him. “Y [a]demás de esto despobló la villa del Almadén y minas de Coahuila, donde había […] Casas Reales y caja Real de S.M., […] oficiales, contador, factor y tesorero, lo cual hizo sin tener orden para ello”.⁴⁸

Here Castaño is accused of having abandoned a well-establish Crown settlement. But the charge is invented. In those early days, settlements would be founded and abandoned as needed. Besides, Nuevo Reino de León was an autonomous entity, meaning that no permission from the viceroy was needed to found or abandon any settlement in it. Also, it is revealing to compare the description of Almadén given above by Morlete to that given by Villamanrique, who said that Almadén had “cuatro o cinco casas de banareque y palos”.⁴⁹ “Y con la dicha caja real, como hombre alzado, haciendo presas y cometiendo delitos, él y los que con él van se han entrado a las dichas provincias del Nuevo México”.⁵⁰

This repeats the main charges against Castaño, labels him as a rebel and adds some unspecified crimes. Together with the first paragraph of the Cabeza, this closes the case against Castaño. In due time, the witnesses would appear before Juan Morlete, prosecutor and judge.

The testimonies

The second part of the Diligencias presents the sworn testimonies of several witnesses, all chosen by Morlete.⁵¹ The witnesses belong to three different categories: soldiers or captains under Morlete; soldiers or captains under Castaño; and private individuals, among whom was Diego Ramírez Barrionuevo, who had left Castaño’s group due to some disagreement with him. The composition of the second group is interesting because it included several officers of Nuevo Reino de León: Andrés Pérez and Melchor de Paiba; three captains, and one alférez. Except for Castaño’s Maese de Campo, Cristóbal de Heredia, who did not testify, the group included all the principal members of Castaño’s group.

Before considering some affidavits by the witnesses, it should be noted that the Diligencias document now available is a copy of an original that was prepared during Morlete’s journeys to and from Nuevo México. This implies that the signatures of the witnesses appearing in the document were those of the copyist, not of the witnesses. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that the copy contains those signatures in the same location as the original did, and that no additional material was introduced when the copy was made.

In their Rediscovery of New Mexico, H&R cite some of the testimonies that appear in the Diligencias, and state that while they might have been biased, they provided information not found elsewhere. In this we agree. However, we believe that H&R underestimated the extent of the bias. They also stated that “two witnesses, Diego Ramírez Barrionuevo and Bartolomé de Aviña, told almost exactly the same story of how Castaño conducted himself in the colony at Almadén […] and his practice of seizing natives […] and selling them”.⁵² Indeed, that is what those two witnesses said. However, almost identical statements about this and other charges also occur in every testimony. Not to tax the patience of the reader we present only one short example. This has to do with Morlete’s claim that the viceroy had sent him to Almadén to admonish Castaño not to take Indians. To save space we show the related comments of only three witnesses, noting that they differ little from what other witnesses stated. This is what these three said.

Juan Rodríguez Nieto: vido este testigo que el dicho capitán Juan Morlete por su mando fue a la dicha villa de Coahuila con una carta de su señoría e apercibió al dicho Gapar Castaño que por ningún caso consintiese hacer ni hiciese las dichas presas.

Cristóbal Martín: vido este testigo como el dicho capitán Juan Morlete por su mandado y con una carta suya fue a las minas de Coahuila y apercibió al dicho Gaspar Castaño que por ningún caso consintiese hacer ni hiciese las dichas presas.

Pedro Iñigo: vido este testigo como el dicho capitán Juan Morlete por su mandado y por una carta de su señoría fue a las dichas minas de Coahuila y apercibió al dicho Gaspar Castaño que no hiciese ni consintiese hacer por ningún caso las dichas presas.

This nearly verbatim repetition of “the evidence” against Castaño exists regarding all issues raised in the Diligencias. For example, the last three witnesses also gave the names of Castaño’s soldiers, numbered 30 or so. Without exception, the names, and the order in which they were stated by each of them, are identical. This indicates that the witnesses were given a list from which they read those names. It could be argued that, in order to save time, the scribe copied the names from one list, after the testimonies were made. This could not have occurred because the names appear above the witnesses’ signatures and because the identification of some individuals in the three lists contain small differences that could not have been added afterward.⁵³ All of this shows that the testimonies that appear in the Diligencias were obtained while the prisoners were being taken to Mexico City and were not added later. In turn, this implies that the witnesses were saying what they had been told to say. Of course, this does not prove that their testimonies were false, although the nearly verbatim statements point in that direction. More important is the credibility of the witnesses, considered next.

We begin with Morlete’s soldiers. We think we are justified in believing that this group of witnesses would not disagree with anything presented to them by their captain and salary provider. This is not to say that they lied about everything they said, but that their confirmation of the charges against Castaño is questionable.

Next is Diego Ramírez Barrionuevo. His testimony carried more weight than those of Morlete’s soldiers and captains because he did not receive a salary from Morlete and because he had been an important officer in Nuevo Reino de León under both Carvajal and Castaño. However, his testimony is just as doubtful for several reasons. First, it should be remembered that he separated himself from the people he had belonged to and had lived with for almost ten years. It could be speculated that the break was caused by Castaño’s decision to go to Nuevo México, but it was probably the result of deeper differences. For example, Ramírez probably felt that he should have been named lieutenant by Carvajal because of his longer service to him. In addition, it appears that Morlete promised that he would endorse Ramírez’s petition to the Crown for some compensation for what he had done, which he (Morlete) did in a letter he wrote to the viceroy.⁵⁴

This may have helped Ramírez a few years later when he petitioned, and was awarded, a large territory that included the area around Almadén.⁵⁵ This leaves the testimonies of the seven witnesses that belonged to Castaño’s group. This includes the three individuals cited above, who read and said what they were told. The same is true of the other four. However, because there are other issues that are also relevant to Castaño’s defense, it is simpler to deal with all seven later.

Castaño’s letter to Velasco

As stated above, the testimonies in the Diligencias unanimously “proved” the charges leveled against Castaño. Some of those charges were minor and were considered earlier. Later we will consider the documentary evidence backing and refuting the main charges: taking peaceful Indians prisoner and entering Nuevo México without permission. First, we consider the letter that Gaspar Castaño wrote to the viceroy on 27 July 1591.⁵⁶ Surprisingly, H&R disregarded this letter, calling it “pathetic”,⁵⁷ forgetting the conditions in which it was written, and apparently missing the importance of what Castaño wrote in it. In our opinion, Castaño’s views of what happened are, at least, as valid as those of his detractors. In fact, given the lies in the viceroy letter of 8 October 1590, and the antagonistic actions of Morlete, it would appear, on that basis alone, that Castaño’s views are far more credible than the viceroy’s or the testimonies obtained by Morlete.

The date of Castaño’s letter is significant. The first group of his men had given testimony two weeks earlier, on 10 July 1591. Undoubtedly, Castaño had learned what his one-time subordinates had said, and therefore felt he had to defend himself. It is likely that he asked Morlete to have his views included in the Diligencias, but, if so, this was not something that Morlete would be willing to allow. The only recourse left to Castaño was to write to the viceroy. Of course, he could not openly contest the charges leveled against him because he knew what the viceroy had said. He also knew that Morlete would not forward the letter unless he approved its contents. Therefore, Castaño’s wording was vague. For example, instead of openly denying each of the charges against him, he said “y que alguna cosa se ha sonado por acá que a mi no me ha pasado por la imaginación ni a ninguno de los hombres que en mi compañía han estado porque, aunque estoy en mala reputación”.⁵⁸ In other words, he had heard what was said by the witnesses and knew they were lies, but could not say so openly. A slightly more direct statement addresses the charge of having abused peaceful Indians. Here are his words:

Y a lo que a V.S. le han informado que hacía piezas en gente de paz bien lo pueden decir. Y soy mas porque quien ha de poner puertas al campo principalmente el que tiene a cargo algo siempre es odioso y envidiado y no podré dar gusto a todos. Y a esa causa dijeron eso y mas porque algunos de los hombres que andamos por estas tierras remotas no acudiendo los que mandan a nuestras voluntades decimos lo que queremos y se nos antoja. Solo a Dios nuestro señor y en esto y en lo demás pongo por delante por verdadero juez y sabedor de todo.⁵⁹

This shows that Castaño rejected the charge that he took peaceful Indians, claiming that those subordinates who testified against him were lying because he had prevented them from doing precisely what the charge stated. As we describe later, there was a more important reason for their betrayal. Castaño’s letter also says that, if he took some Indians, it was because they had killed Spaniards and had caused excessive damages. In this he was referring to the war-like Chichimeca. Of course, while it is certain that he had taken such Indians in Nuevo Reino de León and had sold their services in Saltillo, Mazapil, and Zacatecas, it is incorrect to claim, as the accusations do, that he also took Indians in Nuevo México and sent them to those places in New Spain, for as the journeys of Castaño and Morlete and others show, traveling the enormous distances between Nuevo México and those places in the sixteenth century was an exceedingly difficult endeavor.

It should be also stated that if Castaño profited from the slave trade, he was not the only one who did so in New Spain at that time. Many other European soldiers from Nuevo León, Nueva Vizcaya, and Nueva Galicia did the same. However, he alone was persecuted by Velasco. We shall return to this issue after we discuss the viceroy’s most important charge, namely, having entered Nuevo México without permission.

Permission to enter Nuevo México

Velasco’s letter of 8 October 1590 makes it clear that he had no objection to Castaño’s entering Nuevo México, and that he thought that it was a good idea to send him and his people there as a means to finish them. Nevertheless, after being told that Castaño had departed from Almadén, he claimed that only he had the authority to permit Spaniards to enter that province. In this he was not entirely correct. Previous entradas to that province had taken place without viceregal permission. A notable example was Espejo’s entrada which, according to him, was authorized by an alcalde mayor of Cuatro Ciénegas, a small settlement in Nueva Vizcaya.⁶⁰

Velasco’s claim originated in the 1573 Leyes para Nuevos Descubrimientos, cited earlier. The first part of the first law says:

Ninguna persona de cualquier estado que sea, haga por su propia autoridad nuevos descubrimientos por mar, ni por tierra entrada, nueva población ni ranchería en lo que estuviere descubierto o se descubriese sin licencia y provisión nuestra. […] Y mandamos a nuestros visorreyes, Audiencias y Gobernadores y otras justicias de las Indias que no den licencias para hacer nuevos descubrimientos sin enviarnoslo primero a consultar y tener para ello licencia nuestra. Pero permitimos que en lo que estuviere ya descubierto puedan dar licencia para hacer las poblaciones que convengan.⁶¹

The territory that later become known as Nuevo México had been discovered many years earlier. It had been so named during the Chamuscado exploration of 1581-1582,⁶² and had, by 1590, received several visits, including those of Espejo and Leyva. Thus, Nuevo México had certainly been discovered, which meant that no license from the king was necessary. All that was required then was permission by any of the officers named in that law, including governors and other officers. Indeed, that is what Espejo did. Certainly, Castaño, as lieutenant governor of Nuevo Reino de León, could license others to go to Nuevo México to settle there. But, could he license himself? Although the Nuevas Leyes do not say so explicitly, the answer is that he could because it would be incorrect to let somebody under him be the leader of a group of people that included himself. In any event, this is what Castaño said in his letter to Velasco:

Y si he errado ha sido con la sinceridad que Dios sabe y debajo del poder de S.M. mandó dar de gobernador y capitán general del Nuevo Reyno de León a Luis de Carvajal […] Y el haberme movido a hacer esta jornada […] ha sido entendiendo lo podía hacer con los poderes y recaudos que de S.M. tengo.⁶³

That is, Castaño’s claim was that he thought he had the right to make the entrada because the king had given Gov. Carvajal that power, and he, as his lieutenant governor had that right as well. Indeed, Carvajal and his people had felt since 1582 that they could enter Nuevo México.⁶⁴ Furthermore, he had even asked the king that the province be officially given to him because, he said, it was next to his.⁶⁵ Thus, Castaño had good reason to think that he had the right to make the journey. This, and the viceroy intentions, made clear by his invitation letter, were sufficient to make the move.

The testimonies about the treatment of Indians

Castaño’s officers and captains certainly knew that the charge about taking Indians was false and had very likely seen the documents that enabled him to enter Nuevo México without permission from the viceroy. Why then, did they give false testimony? Morlete claimed that most of them were against Castaño, but this unlikely. It is true that some of Castaño’s men were, but their number was small. One was Capt. Alonso Jaimes, who during the journey to the Pueblos had twice been disciplined by Castaño. It also appears that Cristóbal Martín and Juan Rodríguez Nieto were among those soldiers mentioned in the Memoria as having risen against Castaño. But the remaining four captains were loyal officers of Castaño, and some, like Juan Pérez de los Ríos, had pushed Castaño to make the journey.

The reason for the false testimony of these individuals is not difficult to find. It is recalled that the viceroy had ordered Morlete take to Mexico City as prisoners not only Castaño, but also his principal captains. As described below, every one of those subordinates who testified against Castaño was not taken to Mexico City but was set free before reaching it. In fact, we see most of their names in other contemporary documents that place them a few years later in those towns or in Monterrey.⁶⁶ Thus, the conclusion is evident: Castaño’s subordinates lied to gain their liberty.

The charge that Carvajal mistreated Indians is also refuted by many independent sources as we have described in other works. One of them is particularly relevant. Some 50 years after Castaño wrote his letter, testimony was taken from various individuals regarding the jurisdiction of Almadén. Among the testimonies, there were those given by two seventy-some years old peaceful Indians of Almadén who had personally known both Carvajal and Castaño. Here is what one said: “Porque como Viejo que es se acuerda que antiguamente estaba en esta villa […] un Tatuane que se llamaba Carvajal […] y que cuando se iba dejaba un hombre muy bueno que se llamaba Castaño”.⁶⁷

Although the statement was made many years after Castaño left Almadén, it is important because it was given by an Indian who knew him personally and who, contrary to his detractors or subordinates, had nothing to gain by what he said.

The viceroy’s case

We now consider the charges made by the viceroy. Of course, his initial case against Castaño had been strengthened by the charge that he was abusing the Indians in his territory and beyond. As indicated earlier, the origin of this charge can be traced to Villamanrique’s fabrications. Velasco accepted these statements that Castaño was doing the same in Nuevo Reino de León and in Nuevo México but did not present any credible evidence to substantiate the charge.

The reader may be asking why the highest Crown officer in New Spain would take the trouble to prosecute Castaño using unproven charges, and furthermore spend considerable effort and Crown money in the process. It is true that he might have felt that his authority had been diminished by Castaño’s journey. However, the motivation was political and originated a few years earlier, in Carvajal’s times.

The issue is discussed at length in recent works by the author to which the interested reader is referred.⁶⁸ Briefly, Carvajal was persecuted by Viceroy Villamanrique because certain powerful individuals who had lost some lands to Nuevo Reino de León wanted to recover them. However, the audiencia had ruled the corresponding jurisdictional pleito about those lands several times in favor of Carvajal, the last one in a decisive manner.⁶⁹ It was after that final ruling that Villamanrique arrived in New Spain and that Eugenio de Salazar fabricated the lie that Carvajal and his people had abused the Indians. The fabrication was made possible because Salazar was then the fiscal of the Audiencia de México, and as such had the responsibility of protecting the Indians. However, that advice had nothing to do with that protection but with the fact that he had lost the pleito mentioned above and fabricated the charges as a means of invalidating the audiencia’s rulings. Although no credible evidence was ever presented to back the accusation, the lie achieved Villamanrique’s goals and resulted in Carvajal’s demise.

Castaño’s persecution follows the same pattern as Carvajal’s and was based on Villamanrique’s obsession to rid his New Spain from what he believed were delinquent soldiers “sin doctrina”. Of course, Villamanrique had no evidence to back the charges. Nevertheless, he strongly advised Velasco to eliminate Castaño. It was therefore natural for Velasco to use the same fabricated charges that Villamanrique had used against Carvajal to go after Castaño.

However, Castaño’s persecution was also aided by Nueva Vizcaya’s leaders, Diego de Ibarra and Rodrigo del Río Losa, who wanted to eliminate the Nuevo Reino de León in order to increase Nueva Vizcaya’s territorial possessions. In this, the cooperation of Juan Morlete proved useful because there had been a long-standing animosity between him and Castaño. While this animosity may have played a role in Morlete’s actions against Castaño, there was a more powerful force behind them: Nueva Vizcaya. In a letter to the king, Velasco stated that he had selected Juan Morlete to seize Gaspar Castaño “por la relación que de él me hizo

Rodrigo del Río y otros”.⁷⁰ This is revealing because Juan Morlete was an agent of Nueva Vizcaya who, for years, had undermined the efforts of Carvajal and his lieutenants in Nuevo Reino de León. A short account of Morlete’s interference was given by Alonso de León fifty years later⁷¹.

Clear evidence of Morlete’s character and actions is found in a letter from the Count of Monterrey, who succeeded Velasco as viceroy of New Spain. A few years after Castaño had died, Diego de Montemayor, another lieutenant of Carvajal, attempted to re-settle Carvajal’s province and founded the city of Monterrey where the village of San Luis had been. News about the foundation reached the Count of Monterrey, who wrote to the king saying that

I agora, dos años o mas tuve aviso de que se había entrado en aquella provincial un Montemayor con cierto título antiguo de Teniente de Gobernador […] que le había dejado un hijo de Carvajal […] Y después fueron viniendo relaciones de que se conseguía algún fruto en aquella población. Y comunicándolo con la Audiencia pareció se disimulase por entonces, mandándole por una parte que pareciese aquí como Reo, y por otra darle cierta comisión en el ynterin para regir una pequeña población que habían hecho. Hizose así aunque con ocasión de la falta que él haría allí y que durante su ausencia le descompondría todo aquello un capitán Morlete, que en nombre de la gobernación de la Nueva Vizcaya pretendía excluir al Montemayor y compañeros se fue excusando la venida.⁷²

There is no question that Nueva Vizcaya was to profit greatly from the demise of Gaspar Castaño. Fortunately for Diego de Montemayor (and for the future of Nuevo Reino de León), the influence of Diego de Ibarra and of Rodrigo del Río had decreased with the appointment, in 1595, of the Count of Monterrey as viceroy. However, the conflicts between the two political entities lasted several additional decades as shown to the jurisdictional pleito about Almadén.⁷³

In Mexico City

Morlete’s journey from Santo Domingo Pueblo to Mexico City proceeded slowly. En route he wrote to the viceroy informing him that he had found a shorter way and that he was going directly to Mazapil.⁷⁴ It appears that his group was disbanded there, and that most of the members of Castaño’s expedition were released there as well. However, Morlete, Castaño, Diego Ramírez Barrionuevo, Domingo Martínez de Cearreta, and some others continued the journey to Mexico City. Further delays must have occurred along the way for the group had not arrived in Mexico City by late November of 1591.⁷⁵ The arrival probably took place soon after because in January, Morlete and some members of his party appeared before the audiencia as witnesses in two Informaciones de Oficio. One was about Francisco de Urdiñola, a rich landowner who wanted to be awarded the governorship of Nuevo México. One of the witnesses supporting his petition was Morlete.⁷⁶ The other was to support a petition, by Domingo Martínez de Cearreta and his son that they be compensated for their participation in Castaño’s imprisonment. Among its witnesses was Diego Ramírez Barrionuevo. Confirming the arrival is a letter by Lomas y Colmenares, dated February 22, 1592, in which he expresses alarm that “Gaspar Castaño y sus secuaces” had entered Nuevo México without permission while he was still waiting for the Crown to rule on his petition to be given that province.⁷⁷

Although the viceroy stated that the principal officers of Castaño were tried, not one of those who testified against him was. In fact, as mentioned before, captains Juan Pérez de los Ríos, Pedro Iñigo, and Alonso Jaimes, and the secretary Andrés Pérez, were released en route. The only captain of Castaño who remains to be accounted for is Cristóbal de Heredia. As the most important captain under Castaño, Heredia must have been imprisoned by Morlete. However, we do not know whether he was tried. On the other hand, we do know that he did not testify against Castaño; unlike his peers, he did not want to gain his freedom by betraying his superior.

This leaves Castaño himself. Even before he arrived in Mexico City, Morlete had sent several documents to the viceroy, among which was a Relación. These were sent to the king on 6 November 1591.⁷⁸ A few months later, on 28 February 1592, the viceroy informed the king that he had ordered that Castaño be tried and that some diligencias had been made about the case, which he was sending with his letter. Apparently, these documents included Castaño’s Memoria. After reading that letter, the king ordered that the previous letter should be found and brought to him together with all related documents. Upon reading all documents the king ordered that a letter should be sent to the viceroy saying that:

Ya que estaba poblado el Gaspar Castaño y descubierto tantos pueblos conforme a la relación que envía, se tuviera por mejor no sacarle, sino ordenar que se pasase adelante en la población, e fuera bien haber dado aquesta orden al que entró tras él que sería bien dé orden como se pueble aquello pues hay tanta gente e sin resistencia se vienen de paz.⁷⁹

The king’s disappointment with Velasco’s actions is evident. The last letter that the viceroy seems to have sent the king about Castaño is dated 26 May 1592; it was received in Madrid a year later. In it the viceroy says: “La causa [proceso] se va siguiendo contra estos hombres [Castaño y sus capitanes] en esta Real Audiencia y queda en estado de prueba y concluida y determinada a enviar si pareciese necesario”.⁸⁰

Of course, Velasco knew that the king would not request a copy of the trial. Whether a complete record of the trial existed is uncertain. The only available evidence that a trial took place stems from a document written on a single folio on 7 October 1593 by Nicolás Scoto, chamber scribe of the audiencia.⁸¹ In it, Scoto certified that a pleito criminal against Castaño had taken place and that a sentence against him was passed on 13 February 1593, more than eight months after Velasco said that the trial had been concluded. This long delay puts in question the assertion by the viceroy and raises the possibility that a normal-length trail never took place.

Nevertheless, a trial, even if cursory, did take place and a sentence was passed. As the title of Scoto’s document indicates, that sentence is contained in it. In addition, it also contains the rejection, on 5 March 1593, of an appeal made by Castaño. Excerpts of the sentence and of the rejection are shown below:

Fallamos, por la culpa que deste proçesso resulta contra el dicho Capitán Gaspar Castaño, le debemos condenar e condenamos en seis años de destierro precisos de la gobernaçión desta Nueva España, los quales sirva a Su Magestad pagándole su sueldo en las Yslas Philipinas en lo que le mandare el gobernador dellas, pagándole en esta çiudad su sueldo como a los demás soldados, y no quebrante el dicho serviçio, so pena de muerte […] Y por esta nuestra sentençia definitiva assí lo pronunçiamos e mandamos con costas, y se execute sin embargo de suplicaçión que della se interponga. Liçenciado Saavedra Valderrama, el doctor Santiago de Bera, el liçenciado don Francisco Tello. En la ciudad de México, treze días del mes de febrero de 1593.⁸²

Thus, a little more than a year after arriving in Mexico City, Gaspar Castaño was sentenced to a six-year exile from New Spain. The sentence is interesting on several grounds: it stated that no appeal should be admitted, it prescribed the place of exile, and, furthermore, it stipulated that Castaño was to serve the Crown in whatever the governor of the Philippines ordered. The reason for these clauses will be discussed later.

In any case, Castaño appealed the decision. The appeal was contested by the fiscal of the audiencia and was promptly rejected. Even so, more than a year had passed between Castaño’s arrival in Mexico City and the first time the audiencia ruled against him. It is possible that the audiencia required extra time to deal with the case, but this is unlikely given that Morlete had essentially tried Castaño en route to Mexico City; all that was needed to close the case was to sentence him.

As it turns out, the delay was due to other reasons. It appears that Castaño’s long imprisonment had caused a strong reaction among the vecinos of Mexico City. Velasco probably wanted to keep Castaño in jail in perpetuity, just as he had done with Carvajal after his trial by the Inquisition ended. However, it seems that the clamor of the vecinos forced the viceroy to do something else with Castaño. That something else was, of course, sending him to the Philippines. This alternate idea was not the result of careful planning but was due to the arrival in Mexico City of a series of letters from the governor of the Philippines, Gómez Pérez das Marinas, in which he urgently requested military support because he felt the Japanese were threatening his islands.⁸³ Those islands, far as they were from New Spain, were under its jurisdiction. Thus, Velasco felt he should send him as many soldiers and weapons as he could. It was natural, and useful to the Crown, to send Castaño there as well.

Although the ships in which the governor’s letters traveled arrived in Acapulco in late November and early December of 1592,⁸⁴ they had not arrived in Mexico City by 5 January, 1593 when Velasco wrote to the king telling him that the ships from Manila had not yet arrived, as it was customary.⁸⁵ However on February 25 Velasco wrote again to inform the king that he had seen the letters and that he had sent to the Philippines a galleon with about 300 soldiers and sailors. The departure of that galleon took place on February 8. A second one was being prepared. As for its departure, all that the viceroy could say was that “y procuraré que para mediados de marzo, a lo largo, haya salido del Puerto”.⁸⁶

The dates of the governor’s letters are important to better understand Castaño’s sentence and the dates when it was made and affirmed. We believe that Castaño was in jail when those letters reached Mexico City in January of 1593, and that he had not yet been subject to a formal trial. The viceroy knew that Castaño would have to be either tried and sentenced, or released, because the news of his imprisonment would sooner or later reach the king. Pérez das Marina’s request for military support provided him with a way out of his quandary: send Castaño to the Philippines to serve there. However, appearances had to be met. Castaño was probably subject to a short trial, if at all, and was sentenced on February 13, 1593. By then the first galleon had left. According to the viceroy the second was going to leave by mid-March. It is no wonder that the audiencia rejected Castaño’s appeal, and that it did so quickly, for had they accepted it, it would not have been possible to send him to the Philippines that year.

We return to the events that took place in Mexico City after Morlete arrived there with his prisoner, about which almost nothing is known. Fortunately, one of the documents we found during our investigations throws some light on those events.⁸⁷ The document is important because it predates, by more than 50 years, what Alonso de León wrote about the case, because it expresses the views of someone who was in Mexico City when prisoner Castaño arrived in 1592, and because those views were presented in the highest Spanish court that dealt with the Indies, the Consejo de Indias, a fact that gives them a higher degree of credibility. That someone was Lázaro Suárez de Córdoba. He had been alcalde in Antequera (now City of Oaxaca) in New Spain and had gone to Spain in 1595 or 1596 to try to obtain from the king a more rewarding position in that Spanish colony. His efforts were successful for Phillip II appointed him as alcalde mayor in the province of Tabasco.⁸⁸ During his stay in Madrid he gave testimony before the president of the Consejo, who was examining the deeds of Viceroy Velasco. The last part of Suárez’ testimony deals with Castaño and is shown below.

Es cosa pública y notoria en México que un capitán Castaño, teniente que fue de la gobernación que dicen de Carvajal, que por aquellas partes linda terrenos por lo que dicen el Nuevo México, el cual dicho capitán Castaño, como teniente de gobernador, a su costa y munición, que en ello gastó más de 25,000 pesos, entró con cantidad de más de 50 hombres por aquellas partes a conquistar el dicho Nuevo México. Y habiendo servido a S.M. y puesto más de veinte y tantos pueblos debajo de su real corona sin genero de guerra ninguno.

Y era público y notorio en México que luego que D. Luis de Velasco, virrey, supo que el dicho capitán Castaño estaba en la dicha conquista, le mandó prender con gente que envió para ello, y que por no alborotar a los indios se dejo prender él y los mejores soldados que con él estaban y los trajeron presos a México, puede haber cinco años, poco más o menos, donde este testigo vio preso al dicho capitán Castaño en la cárcel de Corte, en la cual le hacían cargo que había entrado sin orden del dicho virrey a hacer la dicha conquista. Y aunque se descargaba, la tenía del dicho su gobernador a quien atañía y tocaba por estar vecinos más de 200 leguas que el dicho virrey D. Luis de Velasco, de manera que no le valió el dicho descargo.

Y habiendose dado en fiado la ciudad por cárcel, desde allá enviaba un hombre, que no se acuerda este testigo de su nombre, criado del dicho capitán, con los papeles y testimonios secretos que pudo sacar para que de este agravio contase a S.M., fue público y notorio que sabido el dicho virrey que venía el dicho hombre a Castilla con los dichos recaudos, le envió a prender y prendió en la Veracruz, y le quitaron los papeles. Y al dicho hombre embarcaron para las Filipinas.

Y al dicho capitán Castaño volvieron a prender y le tuvieron en la cárcel de Corte mucho tiempo en cuya persecución de agravios todo México estaba escandalizado de verlos y de ver que no le querían dar testimonio para con él ocurrir a su rey y señor natural. Y él que le dieron fue en premio de su servicio, que no fuera menos que el de Cortés si le dejaran proseguir la dicha conquista como la tenía empezada, que fue sacarle entre galeotes con una atoba y embarcarle para las Filipinas, para que no se supiese de él y del agravio que se le hacía.

Y este testigo le vio sacar y enviar en una canoa entre galeotes con la dicha atoba de hierro, lo cual con mucha lástima puso en grandísimo escándalo a México […] Y entendió en México este testigo que habiendo conocido el valor de la persona del dicho capitán, [el gobernador de las Filipinas] le hacía mucha cortesía y caso de su persona. Y al fin vino a morir con el dicho gobernador.⁸⁹

This concludes Suárez’s testimony. Its salient points are that Castaño did not spend a year and a half in jail, having been initially confined to the city; that he used that time to collect documents to send to Spain so that somebody could present his case before the Consejo de Indias; that Velasco intercepted the documents; that Castaño claimed that he let himself be taken prisoner so that the Indians of Nuevo México would not be alarmed; that the vecinos in Mexico City were well acquainted with the case and were scandalized by Velasco’s treatment of Castaño; that Castaño’s accomplishments were very significant; and that Castaño had the right to go to Nuevo México. Suárez also tells us that the governor of the Philippines had highly regarded him and that they died together. These last statements are reminiscent of what Alonso wrote many years later in his Relaciones y Discursos.

It is interesting to read in Suárez’ testimony that Castaño’s actions in Nuevo México were then regarded as having been of considerable importance, and that he might have accomplished much more had he been allowed to continue the effort. Of course, this is what the king stated after reading a letter from Velasco. Apparently, the king’s opinion of Castaño and of what the viceroy had done were well known in New Spain. Evidence of this knowledge also appears in a small book about Nuevo México written by a Juan de Montoya in 1602, a facsimile copy of which appears on pages 77 to 136 of an earlier work by H&R. Surprisingly, this important reference to Castaño was ignored by them in their subsequent work on Nuevo México.⁹⁰ This is what Montoya wrote:⁹¹

El año 87, como ya había noticia de esta tierra, determinó de irla a conquistarla el Capitán Castaño, teniendo licencia para ello del gobernador de la Nueva España [sic por Nuevo León], el cual llevó consigo 30 hombres, los mas de ellos casados; llevando su ropa y carros por ser toda tierra llana y buen camino. Llevaron también, cantidad de bueyes, vacas, carneros, ovejas, y cabras para poblar de hecho aquella tierra. Y recibiendose en paz los indios de la primera provincia donde Espejo el año pasado había llegado pasó adelante, conquistando. De suerte que halló 300 leguas adelante, y teniendo rendidos a la corona Real, mas de quince mil indios; Porque los indios primeros que halló en la primera Provincia le ayudaron. Y mandando a pedir socorro y gente a México para que le ayudasen a seguir la dicha conquista el Virrey que entonces gobernaba, le envió a prender, de suerte que por entonces se dejó la dicha conquista. Y habiendo informado al Rey Don Phelippe Segundo de este caso, le pesó en extremo, de que se hubiese estorbado la conquista de aquella tierra, y conversión de aquellas almas.⁹²

Despite the errors contained in the above excerpts of Montoya’s 1602 book (e.g., the year Castaño’s journey actually took place), and the exaggerations in Suarez’ testimony (e.g., comparing Castaño’s accomplishments to those of Hernán Cortés), it would appear that Castaño contemporaries in New Spain thought that his entrada was legal and highly meritorious. They also knew that the king had expressed disapproval that Castaño’s expedition was interrupted, and that the inept actions by Velasco had been contrary to the intended purposes of the Crown. Nevertheless, Castaño was sentenced to exile from New Spain and to service in the Philippines.

In his 1649 Relaciones y Discursos, Alonso de León stated that the Consejo de Indias had pardoned Castaño, but that the order arrived in New Spain after his death. Given the king’s reaction to what had been done to Castaño, it would seem that this statement is true. However, no evidence for this has been found. On the contrary, on 17 January 1593 the Consejo de Indias ordered the Audiencia in Mexico City that Castaño and his soldiers be punished for taking Indians. Nearly two years later, the audiencia responded that Castaño had been sentenced and that the sentence had been executed.⁹³ Thus, at least as late as October 26, 1594, the date of the response, no pardon order had been received in Mexico City.

To the Philippines

According to the copy of the sentence against Castaño, the audiencia re-affirmed the original sentence on March 5, 1593 and stated that he should be taken to the Philippines by Felipe de Sámano in a galleon that was about to sail to those islands from the port of Acapulco. That Castaño was taken to those Islands is evident from the report of Lázaro Suárez. Although he did not name the ship in which he was taken to the Philippines, or the name of Crown officer who accompanied him other contemporary documents provide that information.

In early 1593, two galleons were getting ready in Acapulco to transport to the Philippines Islands the military support that their governor had requested. Their names appear in a report from Velasco to the king.⁹⁴ They were the San Felipe and the Santiago. Initially, the viceroy had wanted both ships to sail together but for some reason there was some delay in getting the Santiago ready on time. Therefore, the San Felipe departed first. The date was February 8, 1593. This date shows that Castaño did not go to the Philippines on that ship.

Almost two months later, on April 4, the Santiago left Acapulco. Its destination, like that of the San Felipe, was Manila. In the sixteenth century, the voyages from Acapulco to and from Manila followed different routes, a southern one on the outgoing voyage, and a northern, longer and more dangerous, on the return.

Records exist that show that the San Felipe arrived in Manila on April 27, 1593, two and a half months after leaving Acapulco. The voyage of the Santiago is not so well documented, but a letter written by Cristóbal de Azcueta, captain of the San Felipe, after his ship returned to Acapulco in November of 1594, indicates that the Santiago had arrived in the Philippines by the end of June of 1593.⁹⁵ The same letter includes the following note: “El capitán Castaño, que aquel año [1593] llegó a las Islas Filipinas de esta tierra con don Felipe de Sámano”.⁹⁶ Thus, Castaño was sent to the Philippines in the exact manner prescribed by his sentence.

It is likely that Sámano took Castaño to the governor and explained to him who the prisoner was and for what purpose had he been brought there. So far as Gómez Pérez das Marinas was concerned, Castaño’s arrival could not have been better timed. Although he had written that the king of Japan was threatening the Philippine Islands, the real need for soldiers was that he was getting ready to begin a military expedition against the Moluccas, or Maluco as the document calls that archipelago in present-day Indonesia. It is evident that Pérez das Marinas saw in Castaño an experienced officer who could help him both in the preparations for the expedition and in the government of the Philippines. From the moment he arrived, Castaño was probably regarded as second in command in the Philippines, a statement that seems to be corroborated by original documents that relate the tragic events that ended the expedition to the Moluccas.

The journey to the Maluco

The Jornada al Maluco, as it is called in Spanish documents, is briefly described in a 1609 book by Antonio de Morga entitled Sucesos en las Filipinas.⁹⁷ Far more detailed descriptions appear in two, little-known, documents that were written soon after the death of the governor Gómez Pérez das Marinas.⁹⁸ In what follows we limit the discussion to those portions of these remarkable documents that are relevant to the topic of this work.

In October of 1593, after a long preparation, a large fleet congregated in the city-port of Çebu (or Zebu) in the Philippines. The fleet included five galeras and many small vessels, which together carried more than 1000 Spaniards, including soldiers, merchants, and vecinos of the islands. The galera capitana, that is the leading ship in the fleet, left Manila on the 18th of that month to join the other vessels in the fleet. Some of the passengers in the capitana are listed by name in one document:

Iban en la galera el gobernador y seis criados suyos y entre ellos el Capitán Castaño y el Capitán Sotomayor, y otros hombrss muy belicosos, y 13 marineros de manera que por todos eran 60 españoles y 260 sangleyes Buenos remeros que iban pagados cada uno 60 pesos por ida y Vuelta al Maluco.⁹⁹

In addition to people, the galera carried a small treasure: 12 000 pesos from the Crown to pay the soldiers, more than 30 000 pesos that belonged to the governor, and 20 000 that belonged to others. After traveling some 20 leagues, the galera had to be detained for some days because of strong winds. To pass the time the governor and some of his associates would amuse themselves listening to music and playing card games. This they did on the 25th, going to bed past midnight. Both documents describe the events that followed. Here is one of those descriptions:

Dos horas antes que amaneciese, teniendo los sangleyes ya concertada su traición […] acudieron todos y mataron las centinelas y los soldados dormidos dandoles crueles cuchilladas con las catanas que les abrían las cabezas y les hacían pedazos sin poder escapar de esta fiera crueldad sino algunos pocos que heridos se arrojaron a la mar, de los cuales algunos se […] Al ruido de esto salió el gobernador de su camara, que estaba debajo de la popa […] y allí le aguardaban y en asomando la cabeza le dieron gran cuchillada que se la abrieron todo.¹⁰⁰

Among those in the cabins only two were spared: Francisco de Monsilla, a young friar, and Juan de Cuellar, the governor’s secretary, both of whom hid while the massacre took place and saw how the governor was killed. A few days later they were traded for water and food in another island.

In the end 56 Spaniards in the galera capitana were killed. One of the archival documents lists their names and says that in addition to those listed many more were killed. The heading of the recto side of the folio listing the names says: Memoria de la gente que mataron en la galera Capitana con el Governador.¹⁰¹ Leading the list is Governor Gómez Pérez das Marinas; immediately below it says “capitán Castaño”. The position of Castaño’s name in the list indicates his importance in the Philippines. Thus, in death he received the respect that he much deserved for all he had done on behalf of the Crown. It was thus that two hours before sunrise on October 26, 1593, Gaspar Castaño de Sosa accompanied the governor of the Philippines in death. His body, like those of the others killed that sunrise, was thrown overboard, half a world away from Portugal, the country of his birth.

Conclusions

This work has considered several events that are related to Gaspar Castaño de Sosa, lieutenant of governor of Nuevo Reino de León, and the leader of the first European attempt to colonize Nuevo México. That attempt failed because he and the large group of people who had accompanied him were forced to return to New

Spain by orders of the then viceroy of New Spain, Luis de Velasco II, who claimed that he had not authorized Castaño to enter Nuevo México and that Castaño was taking peaceful Indians for the purpose of selling their service. However, examination of the available contemporary evidence shows that Castaño did not need that permission, that the accusation that he took peaceful Indians prisoner was fabricated in good part for political reasons promoted by the governors of Nueva Vizcaya, and that the testimonies used to prove the viceroy’s contentions were false.

The work has also considered Castaño’s sentence to exile in the Philippine Islands, the execution of that sentence and his death. Although Alonso de León wrote about these events in the seventeenth century, his remarks were limited to stating that they took place. This work has presented details related to those events that are based on recently found contemporary documents. These documents provide previously unknown information about how the sentence was carried out and how did Castaño died.