Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:03:46.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Spanish Reactions to Elizabethan Colonial Enterprises 1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

D. B. Quinn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Spain's concern with the eastern shores of North America during the earlier part of the sixteenth century had been a peripheral one. Exploration under official and private auspices, both along the coasts and into the interior, had yielded a rich harvest of information, but, down to 1561, projected and attempted settlements and missionary enterprises alike had failed to lead to the establishment of any permanent foothold in Florida or on the coast further north. Spain was nevertheless determined, then and later, to deny the North American lands to any foreign power. But if the preservation of her monopoly rights underlay Spain's resistance to foreign intervention, her occupation of Florida from 1565 onwards and her continued concern to eliminate attempted foreign settlements there and further north in the later sixteenth century was governed by more specific and practical considerations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 1 , December 1951 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 1 note 2 Lowery, Woodbury, Spanish Settlements within the present limits of the United States, 1513–61 (1901)Google Scholar.

page 2 note 1 Hairing, C. H., Trade and Navigation between Spain and the Indies in the time of the Hapsburgs (Cambridge, Mass., 1918), pp. 201–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 2 note 2 Ibid., p. 228; Hakluyt, , Principal Navigations, viii (1904), 303, 307Google Scholar; x. 58.

page 4 note 1 Caravia, E. Ruidiaz y, Florida: su conquista y colonización (1893), 2 vols.Google Scholar; de Meras, Gonzalo Solis, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, ed. Connor, J. T. (Florida State Historical Society, 1923)Google Scholar; Lowery, Woodbury, Spanish Settlements within the present limits of the United States, 1562–74 (1905)Google Scholar; Lanning, J. T., Spanish Missions of Georgia (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1935)Google Scholar; Julien, C. A., Histoire de l'expansion et de la colonisation françaises, i (1948), 222–63Google Scholar; Scisco, L. D., ‘The discovery of the Chesapeake Bay, 1525–73’, Maryland Historical Magazine, xl (1945), 77–86Google Scholar.

page 4 note 2 Ross, Mary, ‘French intrusions and Indian uprisings in Georgia and South Carolina, 1577–80’, Georgia Historical Quarterly, vii (1923), 256Google Scholar; Collección de documentos inéditos de Indias, 2nd Ser., xiv. 58.

page 4 note 3 Cal. S. P., Spain, 1558–67, pp. 323, 333–6, 442, 447, 488; de Armas, A. Rumeu, Viajes de Hawkins a América (Seville, 1947), pp. 134–7Google Scholar; Ribaut, Jean, The whole & true discouerye of Terra Florida, ed. Connor, J. T. (Florida State Historical Society, 1927)Google Scholar; Lowery, Woodbury, ‘Jean Ribaut and Queen Elizabeth’, American Historical Review, ix (1903–1904), 456–9Google Scholar.

page 4 note 4 Cal. S.P., Spain, 1558–67, pp. 470, 486, 493, 495–6, 503; de Armas, Rumeu, Viajes de Hawkins, p. 168Google Scholar; Williamson, J. A., Hawkins of Plymouth (1949), pp. 65, 83–5Google Scholar.

page 5 note 1 The Voyages and Colonising Enterprises of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, ed. Quinn, D. B. (Hakluyt Society, 1940–), i. 186–8, 194Google Scholar.

page 5 note 2 Ibid. ii. 244–5.

page 5 note 3 Ibid., i. 58–9, 62, 71–6; Merriman, R. B., ‘Some notes on the treatment of English Catholics in the reign of Elizabeth’, American Historical Review, xiii (1907–1908), 480–500Google Scholar; Read, Conyers, Sir Francis Walsingham, iii. 40–3Google Scholar.

page 7 note 1 Hawkins, , it is true, was suspected in 1570 of a plan to attack and settle Florida in association with the French and without implicating the queen in his preparations (Cal. S. P., Spain, 1568–1580, p. 277)Google Scholar while, at the end of 1571 or early in 1572 three English ships, possibly belonging to Sir William Winter, attacked San Agustm and were only driven off by de Avilés, Pedro Menéndez with difficulty (Documents concerning English Voyages to the Spanish Main, 1569–1580, ed. Wright, I. A. (Hakluyt Soc., 1932), pp. xxxvi–xxxvii, 37–9)Google Scholar.

page 7 note 2 Ross, , ‘French intrusions …, 1577–80’, Georgia Hist. Q., vii. 256–69; Colonial Records of Spanish Florida, 1577–80, ed. Connor, J. T. (Florida State Historical Society, 1930), pp. 78–9Google Scholar.

page 7 note 3 Is he to be identified with the better-known Philippe Strozzi, cousin of Catherine de Medici, who perished leading the French attack on the Azores in July 1582? (cp. Julien, , Hist, de l'expansion et de la colonisation françaises, I. 271–5)Google Scholar.

page 7 note 4 Ross, , art. cit., pp. 270–5Google Scholar; Colonial Records of Spanish Florida, 1577–80, pp. 318–23.

page 8 note 1 Ross, , art. cit., p. 258Google Scholar.

page 8 note 2 To carry out a reconnaissance, to intimidate the Indians, and to rescue cargoes and crews wrecked on the coast (Coll, doc. inéditos de Indias, 1st Ser.,xi. 229–32).

page 8 note 3 Ross, , art. cit., p. 281Google Scholar.

page 8 note 4 Letters of 15/25 Jan. and 14/24 Dec. 1585, and Memorandum by Rodrigo de Junco [Dec. 1585] (Seville, Archivo General de Indias, 147.5–15; copy in Library of Congress, Transcripts, A.G.I., General Series).

page 8 note 5 Cal. S.P., Spain, 1580–6, pp. 520–1.

page 8 note 6 This is shown by the anonymous ‘Notes geuen to Master Candishe’, marked ‘For Master Rawleys Viage’ (Essex County Record Office, MS. S/DRh, M.i), discussed in Quinn, D. B., ‘Preparations for the 1585 Virginia voyage’, in William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., vi. 209–24Google Scholar.

page 9 note 1 Simancas, Archivo General, Estado, K. 1563, nos. 22–52, 53–80, 53–88; Cal. S.P., Spain, 1580–6, pp. 532–6.

page 9 note 2 The Writings and Correspondence of the two Richard Hakluyts, ed.Taylor, E. G. R. (Hakluyt Soc., 1935), ii. 345Google Scholar.

page 9 note 3 24 Apr./4 May 1585. Mendoza to the king (Simancas, Estado, K. 1563, nos. 53–88; Cal. S.P., Spain, 1580–6, p. 536).

page 10 note 1 22 May/r June, Mendoza to the king (Simancas, Estado, K. 1563, nos. 56–213; Cal. S.P., Spain, 1580–6, p. 539, which, mistakenly, makes Mendoza say Grenville had returned to France). The report may be based on a letter from a correspondent in England, which was intercepted, but which, after copying, may have been allowed to proceed (S.P. Foreign, Spain, S.P. 94/2, fos. 203–4).

page 10 note 2 13/23 July. Philip II to Mendoza (Simancas, Estado, K. 1563, nos. 21–365 Cal. S.P., Spain, 1580–6, p. 543).

page 10 note 3 Junta de Puerto Rico to the king, 15/25 Jan. 1585 (Seville, A. G.I. 147.5–15; copy in Library of Congress, Transcripts, A. G.I., General Series).

page 10 note 4 Diego Fernández de Quiñones to the king, 12/22 June 1585 (de Madrid, Museo Naval, Collección Navarrete, xxv, no. 48Google Scholar).

page 11 note 1 Ibid., nos. 48, 49 (Relation of Hernando de Altamirano); notes from an intercepted letter of 13/23 June 1585 from Osorio, Diego (Cal. S.P., Foreign, 1584–5, p. 573)Google Scholar.

page 11 note 2 Chatelaine, Verne E., The Defences of Spanish Florida, 1565–1763(1941), pp. 50–1Google Scholar.

page 11 note 3 Hakluyt, , Principal Navigations, ix. 113–15Google Scholar. He may have been one of the four survivors from the San Mateo fight of 1580 (p. 7 above).

page 11 note 4 16/26 Oct. 1585 (Hakluyt, , Principal Navigations, x. 88–97Google Scholar; de Castellanos, Joan, Discurso de el Capitán Francisco Draque, ed. González, ÁngelPalencia (1921), pp. lxxxi–iii)Google Scholar.

page 11 note 5 Castellanos, , Discurso, pp. lxxvii–xc, 360–1Google Scholar .

page 12 note 1 Junta de Puerto Rico to the king, 14/24 Dec, and memorandum of Rodrigo de Junco (Seville, A.G.I. 147.5.15; Library of Congress, Transcripts A.G.I., General Series). The relation of Enrique Lopez, made in the Azores about 8/18 Nov. (Museo Naval de Madrid, Coll. Navarrete, xxv, no. 53), which gave news that Grenville had left 300 men to establish a fortified post on the North American coast, may also have been in their hands. It was not until March that definitive orders were given for Juan de Posada to sail his frigate with the Flota to Dominica and then break off for Florida (20 Feb./2 Mar. 1586. King to Casa de Contratación, Seville, A.G.I., Santo Domingo 2528. I owe this document to Señor José de la Peña y Cámara).

page 12 note 2 On the despatch of news, see Coll. doc. inéditos de Indias, 2nd Sen, xiv. 60, 292; Duro, C. Fernández, Armada Española, ii (1896), 482Google Scholar. On 27 Dec./6 Jan. the king instructed Pedro Menéndez Marqués to remain in Florida and be on his guard since other corsairs had left England and might go to Florida (Seville, A.G.I., Santo Domingo 2528. I owe this document to Señor José de la Peńa y Cámara). Warnings about English settlements in Florida had reached Cartagena by 26 Apr./6 May 1586 (Castellanos, , Discurso, p. 308)Google Scholar.

page 12 note 3 Cal. S.P., Venice, 1581–91, p. 140. The rumour that it was Drake who had landed 1,000 soldiers in Florida reached Antwerp during March 1586 (Cal. S.P., Foreign, 1585–6, p. 484).

page 13 note 1 Santa Cruz to the king [30 Mar./9 April 1586] (Simanc as, Archivo General, Cuaderno 43, Legajo 7, printed in Duro, C. Fernández, La Armada Invencible, i (1884), 330–3)Google Scholar.

page 13 note 2 This does not mean that substantial precautions were not taken. Álvaro Flores de Quinoñes took out a specially reinforced squadron to escort the Mainland fleet in April, while six galleys were posted to the most seriously threatened ports in the Indies (Duro, Fernández, Armada Española, ii. 482Google Scholar; Coll. doc. inéditos de Indias, 2nd Ser., xiv. 59–60, 292). Of the abandonment of Santa Cruz's expedition the king said later, ‘if this was given up it was because it was understood that he [Drake] would retreat before he could be seized’ (cited in letter of 24 Aug./3 Sept. 1586, from Council of the Indies to the king (transcript from Seville, A.G.I. 140.7.35, in B.M., Add. MS. 36315, fos. 76–88). See also Duvale, Altolaguirre y, Bazán, p. 136Google Scholar; Merriman, R.B., The Rise of the Spanish Empire, iv. 519Google Scholar.

page 13 note 3 Hakluyt, , Principal Navigations, viii. 341–8, x. 127–33Google Scholar; Papers relating to the Navy during the Spanish War, 1585–7, ed. Corbett, J. S. (Naval Record Society, xi), pp. 20–6Google Scholar.

page 14 note Which Mendoza on 28 July/7 August 1586 denied as impossible (Simancas, Archivo General, Estado K. 1564, nos. 100–68; Cal. S.P., Spain, 1580–6, pp. 599–601). He later reported, falsely, that Grenville had been taken at sea (Simancas, Archivo General, Estado K. 1564, nos. 100–68; Cal. S.P., Spain, 1580–6, p. 611).

page 14 note 2 5/15 Jan. 1587, Gabriel de Luján to the king (Seville, Archivo General de Indias, 54.1.15; Library of Congress, Transcripts A.G.I., General Series).

page 14 note 3 21 Feb./3 Mar. 1587 (Cal. S.P., Venice, 1581–91, p. 250).

page 14 note 4 British Museum, Add. MS. 28363, fo. 63.

page 14 note 5 Chatelaine, Verne E., The defences of Spanish Florida, pp. 50–1Google Scholar.

page 15 note 1 de Oré, Luis Gerońimo, Relation histórica de la Florida, ed. Lopez, Atanasio, I (1931), 74Google Scholar (translated by Maynard Geiger as The Martyrs of Florida, 1513–1616 (Franciscan Studies, no. 18; New York, 1936), p. 41). Oré's work was first published about 1617.

page 15 note 2 2/12 Dec. 1587, Battista Antonelli being named as the engineer (Cal. S.P., Venice, 1581–91, p. 329). Bautista Antonelli, el ingeniero, and Juan de Texada, maestre de campo, planned the rebuilding of the fortifications of Cartagena, destroyed by Drake (Castellanos, , Discurso, pp. cii–iiiGoogle Scholar).

page 15 note 3 7/17 July 1588. Pedro Menéndez Marqués to the king (Seville, A.G.I. 54.5.9; translated by Smith, Buckingham in Historical Magazine, 1st Ser, iii (New York, 1859), 275–6)Google Scholar.

page 17 note 1 The main authority is Oré, , Relación, i. 78–82Google Scholar (trs. Geiger, pp. 44–9), supplemented by the relation of Vicente González [circa 1600] (Museo Naval de Madrid, Coll. Navarrete, xiv, no. 54; copy in Library of Congress, Lowery Transcripts, iii (sub 1588) ), by Juan Menéndez Marqués to Philip III, 10/20 Sept. 1602 (Seville, A.G.I. 54.5.14; copy in Library of Congress, Lowery Transcripts, iv), and by the relation of Juan Menéndez Marqués, 28 May/7 June 1606 (Ruidiaz, , Florida, ii. 495–509)Google Scholar. See also Scisco, L. D., ‘The Voyage of Vicente González in 1588’, in Maryland Historical Magazine, xlii (1947), 95–100Google Scholar.

page 17 note 2 See p. 15, n. 3 above.

page 17 note 3 So Oré, , Relacion, i. 82–3Google Scholar (trs. Geiger, pp. 49–50), but royal letters of 19/20 October 1588 recalling him, which possibly reached Havana towards the end of the year, reiterated the instruction to make a personal reconnaissance of the coast before coming home. Gutierre de Miranda was named as governor to succeed him. (Seville, A.G.I., Santo Domingo 2528. I owe this item to Señor José de la Peña y Cámara).

page 18 note 1 Pedro de Araña to Juan de Ibarra (Seville, A.G.I. 54.1.34 [Santo Domingo 118]; copy in Library of Congress, Transcripts A.G.I., General Series).

page 18 note 2 The value, or otherwise, of this deposition as evidence on the ‘Lost Colony’ depends (1) on whether Carey's ships arrived before or after White's arrival with the third colony on 26 July/5 Aug. and his departure on 28 Aug. /7 Sept. (Hakluyt, , Principal Navigations, viii. 391–400Google Scholar), and (2) on where they put to shore, whether at 35° 50′ N. near Roanoke Island, or at approximately 37° N. inside Chesapeake Bay. Without a fuller deposition it does not appear likely that these questions can be resolved.

page 18 note 3 11–21 Mar. 1589. Relation of Pedro Diaz; 16–26 Mar. Pedro de Araña to Juan de Ibarra (Seville, A.G.I. 54.1.34 [Santo Domingo 118]; copies in Library of Congress, Transcripts A.G.I., General Series).

page 19 note 1 Oré, , Relación, i. 84 (trs. Geiger, pp. 50–1); letter of 1602 and relation of 1606 by Juan Menéndez Marqués (p. 17, n. 1 above)Google Scholar.

page 20 note 1 Oré, , Relación, i. 84Google Scholar (trs. Geiger, p. 51); Coll. doc. inéditos de Indias, 2nd Ser., xiv. 93 (cp. idem, xvii. 74 on the development of the galizabra, a fast-sailing frigate, and Hairing, , Trade and Navigation, pp. 264–5)Google Scholar.

page 20 note 2 The interrogatories for Sanderson, in Watts v. Sanderson (High Court of Admiralty, Instance and Prize, Libels, H.C.A. 23/4) throw some new light on Sanderson's connection with this venture, and, with the source cited in the note following, show it to been made in 1590 and not, as has usually been assumed, in 1591.

page 20 note 3 Notes from intercepted letters from Juan Menéndez de Valdes (S.P. Foreign, Spain, S.P. 94/3, fos. 184–6).

page 21 note 1 For Méndez de Canzo, see Lanning, , Spanish Missions, pp. 111–35Google Scholar, and Geiger, M.Franciscan Conquest of Florida (Catholic University of America, Studies in Hispanic-American History, no. 1, 1937), pp. 71–116Google Scholar.

page 22 note 1 Feb. 1600. Report by Gonzalo Méndez de Canzo to Philip II (Seville, A.G.I. 54.5.9, in Sanz, M. Serrano y, Documentos Históricos de la Florida (1912), pp. 141–59)Google Scholar; Méndez de Canzo to Philip III, 18/28 Feb. 1600 (Seville, A.G.I. 54.5.9 [Santo Domingo 224]), both translated by MissReding, Katherine in Georgia Hist. Q., viii (1924), 215–28Google Scholar.

page 22 note 2 Relation of Vicente González (Museo Naval de Madrid, Coll. Navarrete, xiv, no. 54; copy in Library of Congress, Lowery Transcripts, iii (sub 1588)).

page 22 note 3 10/20 Sept. 1602, which he repeated in part on 28 May /7 June 1606 (see p. 17, n. 1 above).

page 22 note 4 12/22 Sept. 1602 (Seville, A.G.I. 54.5.9; copy in Library of Congress, Lowery Transcripts, iv).