The Valladolid Debate

Should any person be the master of another?

Background

In 1492, Christopher Columbus bumped into the continent we now know as America. He was followed by many voyagers looking to ‘discover’ new lands and make their fortune.

Before long, the indigenous populations of the Americas were overwhelmed by disease, their bodies unable to fight off the European germs. This disease combined with the alliances that many European invaders made with some local people and their more destructive weapons meant that soon many of the indigenous people were subjugated by the Europeans in what was known as the Encomienda system.

The encomienda system meant that anyone who conquered lands on behalf of the Spanish crown were to be rewarded with the labour of the conquered non-Christian people. The justification for this was that the conquered would then benefit from the military protection of the conquerors but also from the education provided to them - especially in the ‘one true faith’.

In effect, the encomienda system made the conquered people little more than slaves working for the conqueror.

However, many campaigners such as former landowner and priest Bartolomé de las Casas (1484 - 1566) petitioned the Spanish Crown to end the encomienda system. In 1542, Carlos I of Spain introduced the New Laws which were intended to restrict the encomienda system and prevent exploitation of the conquered people. Inevitably, however, this resulted in a backlash from the American landowners who hired people like Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda (1494 - 1573) to make their case to the crown.

A formal debate, called a disputation, was arranged to be held in the Colegio San Gregorio in Valladolid.

Aristotle’s concept of a Natural Slave

A commonly held view of the time, that both Sepúlveda and de las Casas relied upon, was that of natural slaves. The idea came from Aristotle who thought that some people are incapable of rational thought, incapable of making decisions or choices - and therefore the only work that they can undertake is physical labour. Aristotle describes such people as natural slaves. He thought that such people could not be treated as anything other than slaves for they are incapable of anything else.

Initially, Aristotle’s view may sound ridiculous to you, but then think - you are considered incapable of making the decision as to whether or not to go school. Is this right? Are you incapable of making this decision?

Just War

Another question central to the debate was whether or not the Spanish were engaged in a Just War. The idea of a Just War was developed by Thomas Aquinas and discussed by the School of Salamanca. What’s relevant here is that a war was only considered just if it was waged for a just cause - i.e. because the attacked party had committed some wrong, and to promote good and avoid evil. The school of Salamanca added that it is necessary that the response be commensurate with - proportionate or equal to - the evil; use of more violence than is strictly necessary would constitute an unjust war.

Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda’s argument

Firstly, Sepulveda argued that the indigenous people of the Americas were incapable of rational thought. He argued that cannibalism and human sacrifice were evidence of this. Therefore he believed them to be natural slaves. He thought the Spanish are vastly superior to the indians and therefore had the natural right to dominate them and give them what is good:

Virtue, humanity and true religion are worth more than gold or silver

Secondly, he argued that because the indigenous people were engaged in cannibalism and human sacrifice, Spain and the conquerors were certainly engaged in a just war. It was important to prevent these evils and convert the population to Christianity

(It is perhaps relevant to note that Sepúlveda had never been to the Americas.)

Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda: Concerning the Just Cause of the War Against the Indians (1547)

The Spanish have a perfect right to rule these barbarians of the New World and the adjacent islands, who in prudence, skill, virtues, and humanity are as inferior to the Spanish as children to adults, or women to men; for there exists between the two as great a difference as between savage and cruel races and the most merciful, between the most intemperate [lacking in self-control] and the moderate and temperate, and, I might even say, between apes and men.

Compare, then, these gifts of prudence, talent, magnanimity [generosity], temperance, humanity, and religion with those possessed by these half-men in whom you will barely find the vestiges [traces] of humanity, who not only do not possess any learning at all, but are not even literate or in possession of any monument to their history except for some obscure and vague reminiscences of several things put down in various paintings; nor do they have written laws, but barbarian institutions and customs. Well, then, if we are dealing with virtue, what temperance or mercy can you expect from men who are committed to all types of intemperance and base [morally low] frivolity [foolishness], and eat human flesh? And do not believe that before the arrival of the Christians they lived in the pacific [peaceful] kingdom of Saturn [ruler of the Golden Age in Classical mythology] which the poets have invented; for, on the contrary, they waged continual and ferocious war upon one another with such fierceness that they did not consider victory at all worthwhile unless they satisfied their monstrous hunger with the flesh of their perfect enemies.

Furthermore these Indians were otherwise so cowardly and timid that they could barely endure the presence of our soldiers, and many times thousands upon thousands of them scattered in flight like women before Spaniards so few that they did not even number one hundred. . . . Although some of them show a certain ingenuity [skill] for various works of artisanship [craftsmanship], this is no proof of human cleverness, for we can observe animals, birds, and spiders making certain structures which no human accomplishment can competently [adequately] imitate. . . .They have established their nation in such a way that no one possesses anything individually, neither a house nor a field, which he can leave to his heirs in his will, for everything belongs to their masters whom . . . they call kings (chiefs), and by whose whims they live, more than by their own, ready to do the bidding and desire of these rulers and possessing no liberty. And the fulfillment of all this, not under pressure of arms but in a voluntary and spontaneous way, is a definite sign of the servile [slavish] and base soul of these barbarians. . . .

They live as employees of the king, paying, thanks to him, exceedingly high taxes. . . . And if this type of servile and barbarous nation had not been to their liking and nature, it would have been easy for them, as it was not a hereditary [by right of birth] monarchy, to take advantage of the death of a king in order to obtain a freer state and one more favorable to their interests; by not doing so, they have stated quite clearly that they have been born to slavery and not to civic and liberal [free] life. Therefore, if you wish to [subdue] them . . . to a servitude a little less harsh, it will not be difficult for them to change their masters, and instead of the ones they had, who were barbarous and impious [wicked] and inhuman, to accept the Christians, cultivators of human virtues and the true faith.

(Sepulveda, Juan Gines de, "Democrates II, or Concerning the Just Causes of the War Against the Indians.")https://sites.miamioh.edu/empire/files/2026/01/1545-Sepulveda-On-the-Just-Causes-for-War-against-the-Indians.pdf

Bartolomé de las Casas’ objections

Covnersely, de las Casas argued that there was plenty of evidence that the indigenous people were capable of reason and therefore not natural slaves: they had language, complex legal systems, great buildings and beautiful architecture. To de Las Casas, who had actually lived there, the notion that they were not capable of rational thought seemed absurd.

Neither did de las Casas consider the war to be just. Yes of course cannibalism and human sacrifice were evils, but he did not think that the violence and slavery of the people was commensurate with the evil being avoided. He also argued that forced conversions were worthless. He thought that people should only be brought to faith through reason - the idea that you can force someone to believe is nonsense. (Someone can say that they believe, but that doesn’t mean that they do.)

Discussion

Some people have criticised de las Casas. At one point, the Spanish business owners were complaining that ending the encomienda system would mean that they didn’t have enough workers, and de las Casas responded by saying that they should bring in workers from Africa - as the Portuguese were doing. He later renounced that idea and was embarrassed about having said it.

De Las Casas was also very patronising about the indigenous people - and at one point said that the practice of human sacrifice showed how devout they were. Some people also argue that he was an essentialist about the indigenous people, treating them all as one homogenous block.

Tasks

Outline the arguments presented by Sepúlveda.
Outline de las Casas' objections to these arguments.
Is the power of rational thought a good basis for human rights?

Page updated

Report abuse