The Valladolid Debates
Source: http://cassian.memphis.edu/history/dunowsky/worldcivdocs/sepulveda.html
Even before the Laws of Burgos, clergy in the Americas protested the cruel treatment of the Indians. As each new reform
failed to improve the situation, some reformers reached the conclusion that conquest and colonization themselves were at
the root of the problem, that no reform could be effective as long as Spanish colonists had access to indigenous labor.
Although all opposed excessive cruelty, philosophers disagreed widely on the nature of the indigenous people and the
possible justification for waging war upon them and compelling them to become Christians. The moral clash culminated
in 1550 when Emperor Charles V convened his Royal Council to hear a formal debate on the question, "Is it lawful for the
king of Spain to wage war on the Indians?" The sessions lasted for more than a month, and two of the foremost arguments
are presented here..
Juan Sepúlveda, Treatise on the Just Causes of War Against the Indians
In prudence, talent, virtue, and humanity they are as inferior to the Spaniards as children to adults, women to men, as the
wild and cruel to the most meek, as the prodigiously intemperate to the continent and temperate, that I have almost said,
as monkeys to men.
Now compare the [Spanish] traits of prudence, intelligence, magnanimity, moderation, humanity, and religion with the
qualities of these little men in whom you will scarcely, find even vestiges of humanity; who not only are devoid of
learning but do not even have a written language; who preserve no monuments of their history, aside from some vague
and obscure reminiscence of past events, represented by means of certain paintings; and who have no written laws but
only barbaric customs and institutions. And if we are to speak of virtues, what moderation or mildness can you expect of
men who are given to all kinds of intemperance and wicked lusts, and who eat human flesh?
And do not believe that before the coming of the Christians they lived in that peaceful reign of Saturn that the poets
describe; on the contrary, they waged continuous and ferocious war against each other, with such fury that they
considered a victory hardly worth while if they did not glut their monstrous hunger with the flesh of their enemies, a
ferocity all the more repellent since it was not joined to the invincible valor of the Scythians, who also ate human flesh.
For the rest, these Indians are so cowardly that they almost run at the sight of our soldiers, and frequently thousands of
them have fled like women before a very few Spaniards, numbering less than a hundred....
Could one give more convincing proof of the superiority of some men to others in intelligence, spirit, and valor, and of the
fact that such people are slaves by nature? For although some of them display a certain talent for craftsmanship, this is not
proof of human intelligence, for we know that animals, birds, and spiders do certain work that no human industry can
completely imitate. And as regards the mode of life of the inhabitants of New Spain and the province of Mexico, I have
already said that they are considered thee most civilized of all. They themselves boast of their public institutions, for they
have cities constructed in an orderly fashion, and kings, not hereditary but elected by popular vote; and they carry on
commerce among, themselves in thee manner of civilized people.
But see how they deceive themselves, and how much I disagree with their opinion, for in these same institutions I see
proof on the contrary of the rudeness, the barbarism, and the inherently slavish nature of these people. For the possession
of habitations, of a fairly rational mode of life, and of a kind of commerce is something that natural necessity itself
induces, and only serves to prove that they are not bears or monkeys and are not completely devoid of reason. But on the
other hand, they have no private property in their state, and they cannot dispose of or bequeath to their heirs their houses
or fields, since they are all in the power of their lords, whom then improperly call kings, at whose pleasure, rather than at
their on, they live, attentive to their will and caprice rather than to their own freedom. And the fact that they do all this in a
voluntary and spontaneous manner and are not constrained by force of arms is certain proof of the servile and abased
spirit of these barbarians....
Such, in sum, are the disposition and customs of these little men -- barbarous, uncivilized, and inhumane; and we know
that they were like this before the coming of the Spaniards. We have not yet spoken of their impious religion and of the
wicked sacrifices in which they worshipped the devil as their God, believing that they could offer no better tribute than
human hearts.... How can we doubt that these peoples, so uncivilized, so barbarous, contaminated with so many
infidelities and vices, have been justly conquered by such an excellent, pious, and just king as the late Ferdinand the
Catholic, and by a nation that is most humane and excels in every kind of virtue?
Las Casas, Apologetic History of the Indies
The Indians are so skilled in every mechanical art that with every right they should be far ahead of all the
nations of the known world. In the liberal arts which they have been taught up to now, such as grammar and
logic, they are remarkably adept. With every kind of music they charm the ears of the audience with wonderful
sweetness. They have important kingdoms, large numbers of people who live settled lives in a society, great
cities, kings, judges and laws, persons who engage in commerce, buying, selling, lending, and other contracts of
the law of nations....
From the fact that the Indians are barbarians it does not necessarily follow that they are incapable of
government and have to be ruled by others, except to be taught about the Catholic faith and admitted to the hold
sacraments. They are not ignorant, inhuman, or bestial. Rather, long before they had heard the word Spaniard,
they had properly organized states, wisely ordered by excellent laws, religion, and custom. They cultivated
friendship and bound together in common fellowship, lived in populous cities in which they wisely
administered the affairs of both peace and war justly and equitably, truly governed by laws which at very many
point surpass ours.
The Indians are our brothers, and Christ has given his life for them. Why, then, do we persecute them with such
inhuman savagery?... They will embrace the teaching of the Gospel, as well I know, for they are not stupid or
barbarous but have a native sincerity and are simple, moderate, and meek.... Once they have embraced it, it is
marvelous with what piety, eagerness, faith, and charity they obey Christ's precepts and venerate the
sacraments. For they are docile and clever, and in their diligence and gifts of nature, they excel most peoples of
the known world.
From examples both ancient and modern, it is clear that no nation exists, no matter how rude and uncivilized,
barbarous, gross, savage or almost brutal it may be, that cannot be persuaded into a good way of life and made
domestic, mild, and tractable -- provided that diligence and skill are employed, and provided that the method
that is proper and natural to men is used: namely, love and gentleness and kindness....
For all the peoples of the world are men, and the definition of all men, collectively and severally, is one: that
they are rational beings. All possess understanding and volition, being formed in the image and likeness of God;
all have the five exterior senses and the four interior senses, and are moved by the objects of these; all have the
natural capacity or faculties to understand and master the knowledge that they do not have; and this is true not
only of those that are inclined toward good but of those that by reason of their depraved customs are bad; ail
take pleasure in goodness and in happy, and pleasant things; and all abhor evil and reject what offends or
grieves them....
Thus all mankind is one, and all men are alike in what concerns their creation and all natural things, and no one
is born enlightened. From this it follows that all of us must be guided and aided at first by those who were born
before us. And the savage peoples of the earth may be compared to uncultivated soil that readily brings forth
weeds and useless thorns, but has within itself such natural virtue that by labor and cultivation it may be made
to yield sound and beneficial fruits.
SCRIPT OF THE DEBATE BETWEEN LAS CASAS AND SEPULVEDA
Source: http://www.hist.umn.edu/hist3401/guidescriptdebate.html
Note: Las Casas and Sepulveda never held a live face-to-face debate. The following is a dramatic recreation not a literal
event. However, the words within quotation marks are taken from the written works of the respective authors.
Host: It is a pleasure to introduce Friar Bartolomé de las Casas, a former encomendero of Cuba. In 1514, he renounced
the encomienda system and joined the Dominican Brotherhood, using his new position to denounce the cruelties of Spain
and defend Indians. Our other guest, Dr. Juan Ginés de Sepulveda, eminent classical scholar and historian of Spanish
Civilzation, and author of numerous books and treatises. He has never been to the Americas. Welcome to you both. Let’s
get started on our question: “Is it lawful for the king of Spain to wage war on the Indians?”
Las Casas: Thank you. I am glad that you mentioned the missionary task of our Catholic monarchs. I believe that the
Spaniards do have the right to trade with and preach to the Indians, but by the same token we must respect their natural
rights. We have no right to wage war upon them, and even if we did it would be counterproductive to our goals because it
would alienate the Indians from Christianity. "Why will they believe such a proud, greedy, cruel, and rapacious nation?"
No, I believe that if the Indians are to become true Christians, their conversion will only come about through persuasion
and our own pious example.
Sepulveda: Well, the monk's words are certainly honeyed and seductive, but what is this nonsense about no right to wage
war? I base my argument the time-honored works of classical philosophers such as Aristotle. Thus the Greeks and
Romans waged war, and built empires, but in the just cause of spreading civilization. Moreover, no one would argue for
the cowardly and deceitful route of ambush. No, "In warfare it is proper that hostilities first be declared, so that barbarians
may be admonished to accept the great benefits provided by the victor, to learn his best laws and customs, to familiarize
themselves with the true religion, and to admit the sovereignity of the king of Spain. If they reject this sovereignty, they
may be mistreated as enemies of the Spaniards, Spaniards who were sent by the king for the purpose of dominating them.
If the barbarians request time to deliberate, they should be granted as much time as they need to summon a public meeting
and make their decision, but they should not be allowed an excessive period of time." This is precisely the purpose of the
requerimiento.
Las Casas: I am afraid I must object. Dr. Sepulveda is trying to appeal to your audience by calling the natives of the
Americas "barbarians." But such an argument is based in emotion rather than fact. All humans belong to one race, and
they are distinguished from beasts by their capacity for rational thought. I have proven in numerous treatises that the
Indians are in fact rational beings not barbarians. Look at the civilization of the Mexican people, for example: it rivals the
achievements of the Romans and Greeks whom Sepulveda so admires. The Mexicans had commerce, they had political
structures, they had, in short, a civil society.
Sepulveda: Now it is my turn to object, for the friar distorts my position. I have never asserted that the Indians are
animals, though even ants and bees can build basic structures of government and society. No, they are most certainly men,
but what class of men? "They not only lack culture but do not even use or know about writing or preserve records of their
history--save for some obscure memory of certain deeds contained in painting. They lack written laws and their
institutions and customs are barbaric. And as for their virtues, if you wish to be informed of their moderation and
mildness, what can be expected of men committed to all kinds of passion and nefarious lewdness and of whom not a few
are given to the eating of human flesh. Do not believe that their life before the coming of the Spaniards was one of
Saturnine peace, of the kind that poets sang about. On the contrary, they made war with each other almost continuously,
and with such fury that they considered a victory to be empty if they could not satisfy their prodigious hunger with the
flesh of their enemies."
Las Casas: "Even though the Indians cannot be excused in the sight of God for worshipping idols, yet they can be
excused in the sight of men..." Why? Because many ancient societies have, out of ignorance, excercised the same error.
Yes, even the doctor's beloved Romans and Greeks--our own ancestors--have committed human sacrifice!
Host: Wait, please let me interject for a moment. It seems to me we could go on debating for hours whether or not the
Indians are barbarians, but the question before us is whether the Spaniards are justified in their conquest of America? How
does the nature of the Indians relate to the issue at hand?
Las Casas: Do the Spaniards have a right to be in America? Yes, but only for the purpose of spreading the word of the
Lord. And how does this relate to my argument that the Indians are rational beings? Because "The one and only method of
teaching men the true religion was established by Divine Providence for the whole world, and for all times, that is, by
persuading the understanding through reasons. This method should be common to all men throughout the world, without
any distinction made for sects, errors, or corrupt customs." As I said at the beginning, the natives must be attracted to the
true religion through peaceful means; waging war upon them will only turn them away from the Church.
Host: I see, so the debate is one between Church and State. The Church wants to convert and the State to conquer?
Sepulveda: No, whatever the monk implies, it most certainly is not a debate between the Church and the State. The
monarchs of Spain and I share his desire to spread the true religion. Moreover, there are many friars who agree with the
methods I propose and recognize Las Casas as an idealistic pen-pusher with little experience with the task of missionizing.
How can you reason with a barbarian who is performing a human sacrifice? You must use force if necessary to end such
mortal sins. Only when the Indians have been made to stop such barbarities, can the process of conversion begin.
Host: So both of you believe the Indians must be converted to the Catholic faith, but you disagree on the proper methods.
But I still feel that we are not addressing the central issue. If the goal is only Christianization, what gives the Spanish
crown the right to colonize these lands? By what right does the king have sovereignty over America?
Sepulveda: I am so glad you asked that question. You see, the mission of religious conversion cannot be
separated from another very sacred mission: that of bringing civilization. And here is where the barbarous
nature of the Indians is important to my argument. As Aristotle has asserted so eloquently, by the law of natural
slavery the superior must always dominate the inferior: it is not only the right but the duty of the glorious
Spanish nation to educate these barbarians, to turn them from beasts into men. "How can we doubt that these
people--so uncivilized, so barbaric, contaminated with so many impieties and obscenities--have been justly
conquered by such an excellent, pious, and just king, as Ferdinand was and as the Emperor Charles is now, and
by a nation excellent in every kind of virtue, with the best law and best benefit for the barbarians?" And the
monarchs, in their wisdom, have recognized the special valor and virtue of their Spanish subjects, and so they
have delegated this task to them through the encomienda, a most perfect institution. It seems to me the monk is
suggesting treason when he asserts the right of the Church over the Crown.
Host: How about that, Father Las Casas? Are you denying the sovereignty of the Spanish monarchs in the Americas?
Las Casas: Once again the doctor twists my arguments. In fact it is more he than I who suggests treason. Of course God
and the Pope have entrusted the most sacred duty of conversion to the sovereigns of Spain. In fact, "no one is qualified to
have the care of those souls who is not the king of Castile." In other words, the king is ill served by these encomenderos to
whom he delegates his authority--for they are driven by greed and self-interest rather than by loyalty to the Church or the
Crown. They flagrantly violate the terms of the encomienda, for in pushing the natives to work on their farms and in their
mines, they leave them no time to hear the word of God.
Sepulveda: Libel! Just because "a few individuals are unjust or wicked, this in itself does not mean that their turpitude
tarnishes all their people's reputation." Again, the friar exposes his idealism. How can the king carry out this task alone?
The encomenderos have proven their valor and are fit for the task, but they too must eat. In return for religion and
civilization, the Indians must work to support the costs of this mission.
Host: Yes, I suppose it is a costly enterprise. Father, a final question. Can the king exercise his sovereignty if his new
vassals do not pay tribute or taxes?
Las Casas: Of course not. If the King and his servants the friars follow my method of conversion the Indians will happily
become subjects of Spain and voluntarily pay tribute directly to the crown. "To support all that concerns them and to
serve...the Crown, it is necessary that the Indians work--but moderately, so that for that purpose they do not decline or die,
as they have until the present." In this way many profits shall be generated and "the kings of Castile will be sufficiently
recompensed for their care in introducing and preserving the faith in those kingdoms of the Indies."
Host: Thank you both for your time. We’ll see you in 1607!
ARGUMENT of JUAN SEPULVEDA
ARGUMENT of BARTOLOME de LAS CASAS
Debate over treatment of
native populations
HOW DID THE DEBATE CHANGE SOCIAL
RELATIONSHIPS?
“Valladolid Debates” 1550
HOW DID THE DEBATE CHANGE ECONOMIC
RELATIONSHIPS?