Document 1

Pro-Conquistador and Encomienda

Democrates Secundus

or

“The Just Causes of War against the Indians”

by Juan Gines de Sepulveda

Juan Gines de Sepulveda was born in 1490 into a Spanish aristocratic family and studied ancient literature and philosophy at the University of Alcala in Spain. His view that superior peoples had the right to enslave inferiors was an elaboration of the argument he found in Aristotle. He first expounded his theory in 1547 in his Democrates Secundus, or the Just causes of war against the Indians. The arguments he advanced in 1550 against Las Casas were based on this work. Sepulveda dies in 1573, embittered by the controversies that had clouded his old age.

It is established then, in accordance with the authority of the most eminent thinkers, that the dominion of prudent, good, and humane men over those of contrary disposition is just and natural. Nothing else justified the legitimate empire of the Romans over the other peoples, according to the testimony of St. Thomas in his work on the rule of the prince. St. Thomas here followed St. Augustine, who, in referring the empire of the Romans in the fifth book of The City of God wrote: “God conceded to the Romans a very extensive and glorious empire in order to keep grave evils from spreading among many peoples who, in search of glory, coveted riches and many other vices.” In other words, God gave the Romans their empire so that, with the good legislation they instituted and the virtue in which they excelled, they might change the customs and suppress and correct the vices of many barbarian peoples . . .

1)Sepulveda argues here that the Romans were granted their empire by God to “suppress the vices of many barbarian peoples.” What is he trying to say about Spanish rule in the Americas?

Now compare these qualities of prudence skill, magnanimity, moderation, humanity, and religion with those of those little men of America in whom one can scarcely find any remnants of humanity. 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. This form of cruelty is especially prodigious among these people, remotes as they are from the invincible ferocity of the Scythians, who also ate human bodies. But in other respects they are so cowardly and timid that they can scarcely offer any resistance to the hostile presence of our side, and many times thousands and thousands of them have been dispersed and have fled like women on being defeated by a small Spanish force scarcely amounting to one hundred.

2)Here Sepulveda writes at length about the inferiority of the people of America. Pick three specific examples and list them in your own words.

Consider the nature of those people in one single instance and example, that of the Mexicans, who are regarded as the most prudent and courageous. Their king was [Montezuma], whose empire extended the length and breadth of those regions and who inhabited the city of Mexico, a city situated in a vast lake, and a very well defended city both on account of the nature of its location and on account of its fortifications . . . Informed on the arrival of Cortes and of his victories and his intention to Mexico under the pretext of a conference, [Montezuma] sought all possible means to divert him from his plan. Failing in this, terrorized and filled with fear, he received him in the city with about three hundred Spaniards. Cortes, for his part, after taking possession of the city, held the people’s cowardliness, ineptitude, and rudeness in such contempt that he not only compelled the king and his principal subjects, through terror, to receive the yoke and rule of the king of Spain, but also imprisoned King [Montezuma] himself, because of his suspicion that a plot was on foot to kill some Spaniards in a certain province. This he could do because of the stupor and inertia of the people, who were indifferent to the situation and preoccupied with other things than the taking up of arms to liberate their king. And thus Cortes, though aided by so small a number of Spaniards and so few natives, was able to hold them, oppressed and fearful at the beginning, for many days . . . Could there be a better or clearer testimony of the superiority that some have over others in talent, skill, strength of spirit and virtue? Is it not proof that they are slaves by nature?

3)Sepulveda uses the fate of the Aztecs to reinforce his argument. How does this example do that?

They do have houses, and some rational mode of common life, and such commerce as natural necessity demands, but what does this prove other than that they are not bears or monkeys completely lacking in reason?

I have made reference to the customs and character of the barbarians. What shall I say now of the impious religion and wicked sacrifices of such people, who, in venerating the devil as if he were God, believed that the best sacrifice that they could placate him with was to offer him human hearts? . . . Opening up the human breasts they pulled out the hearts and offered them on their heinous altars. And believing that they had made a ritual sacrifices with which to placate their gods, they themselves at the flesh of the victims. These are crimes that are considered by the philosophers to be among the most ferocious and abominable perversions, exceeding all human iniquity . . .

4)Again, Sepulveda tries to prove the people of the New World are “barbarians.” He dismisses their government and attacks their religious practices. What example of religious practice does he emphasize here and why?

How can we doubt that these people – so uncivilized, so barbaric, contaminated with so many impieties and obscenities – have been justly conquered by a nation excellent in every kind of virtue, with the best law and best benefit for the barbarians? Prior to the arrival of the Christians they had the nature, customs, religion and practice of evil sacrifice as we have explained. Now, on receiving with our rule our writing, laws, and morality, imbued with the Christian religion, having shown themselves to be docile to the missionaries that we have sent them, as many have done, they are as different from their primitive condition as civilized people are from barbarians, or as those with sight from the blind, and the inhuman from the meek, as the pious from the impious, or to put it in a single phrase, in effect, as men from beasts.

5)Sepulveda finally explains how the Spanish presence in the Americas is affecting the “barbarians” there. What does he believe?

Document 2

Anti-Conquistador and Encomienda System

In Defense of the Indians

by Bartolome de Las Casas

Bartolome de Las Casas was born into a family of Spanish merchants in 1474. After abandoning his studies for a career of soldiering, he embarked for Hispaniola in 1502 in the entourage of the new governor of the island, Nicolas de Ovando. Las Casas received grants of land from the governor and participated in the conquest of Cuba between 1511 and 1515. In 1515 he renounced his property and rights in the Americas and returned to Spain, where he began to lobby Spanish officials on behalf of the Amerindians. He then joined the Dominican religious order and continued to write and work on behalf of the American Indians while living in Spanish America and traveling regularly back to Spain. His denunciations of alleged Spanish cruelties so struck the consciences of Charles I that the king arranged the debate between Las Casas and Sepulveda in 1550. The following selection is an excerpt from Las Casas’ response to Sepulveda at the Valladolid debate.

However, [Sepulveda] admits, and proves, that the barbarians he deals with . . . have a lawful, just, and natural government. Even though they lack the art and use of writing, they are not wanting in the capacity and skill to rule and govern themselves, both publicly and privately. Thus they have kingdoms, communities, and cities that they govern wisely according to their laws and customs. Thus their government is legitimate and natural, even though it has some resemblance to tyranny. From these statements we have no choice but to conclude that the rulers of such nations enjoy the use of reason and that their people and the inhabitants of their provinces do not lack peace and justice. Otherwise they could not be established or preserved as political entities for long. This is made clear by the Philosopher [Aristotle] and Augustine. Therefore not all barbarians are irrational or natural slaves or unfit for government. Some barbarians, then, in accord with justice and nature, have kingdoms, royal dignities, jurisdiction, and good laws, and there is among them lawful government.

1)Here Las Casas describes the social organization and government system of the Native Americans. According to Las Casas, what does this accomplishment illustrate about the Indians?

The Indian race is not that barbaric, nor are they dull witted or stupid, but they are easy to teach and very talented in learning all the liberal arts, and very ready to accept, honor, and observe the Christian religion and correct their sins (as experience has taught) once priests have introduced them to the sacred mysteries and taught them the word of God. They have been endowed with excellent conduct, and before the coming of the Spaniards, as we have said, they had political states that were well founded on beneficial laws.

Futhermore, they are so skilled in every mechanical art that with every right they should be set ahead of all the nations of the known world on this score, so very beautiful in their skill and artistry are the things this people produces in the grace of its architecture, its painting, and its needlework . . .

In the liberal arts that 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 their audience with wonderful sweetness. They write skillfully and quite elegantly, so that most often we are at a loss to know whether the characters are handwritten or printed . . .

2)In this section, Las Casas writes at length on the good qualities of the Indians. Pick three specific examples and list them in your own words.

Now if, on the basis of this utterly absurd argument, war against the Indians were lawful, one nation might rise up against another and one man against another man, and on the pretext of superior wisdom, might strive to bring the other into subjection. On this basis the Turks, and the Moors – the truly barbaric scum of the nations – with complete right and in accord with the law of nature could carry on war, which, as it seems to some, is permitted to us by a lawful decree of the state. If we admit this, will not everything high and low, divine and human, be thrown into confusion? What can be proposed more contrary to the eternal law than what Sepulveda often declares? What plague deserves more to be loathed? . . .

Hence every nation, no matter how barbaric, has the right to defend itself against a more civilized one that wants to conquer it and take away its freedom. And, moreover, it can lawfully punish with death the more civilized as a savage and cruel aggressor against the law of nature. And this war is certainly more just than the one that, under pretext of wisdom, is waged against them . . .

3)Above, Las Casas argues that not only are the Spanish wrong in their actions, but that the Indians are right. In your own words, what type of war does Las Casas think is unjustifiable and what kind is justifiable?

Again, if we want to be sons of Christ and followers of the truth of the gospel, we should consider that, even though these peoples may be completely barbaric, they are nevertheless created in God’s image. They are not so forsaked by divine providence that they are incapable of attaining Christ’s kingdom. They are our brothers, redeemed by Christ’s most precious blood, no less than the wisest and most learned men in the whole world. Finally, we must consider it possible that some of them are predestined to become renowned and glorious in Christ’s kingdom. Consequently, to these men who are wild and ignorant in their barbarism we owe the right which is theirs, that is, brotherly kindness and Christian love, according to Paul: “I owe a duty to Greeks just as much as to barbarians, to the educated just as much to the uneducated, and it is this that makes me want to bring the Good News to you too in Rome.” Christ wanted love to be called his single commandment. This we owe to all men. Nobody is excepted. “There is no room for distinction between Greek and Jew, between the circumcised and the uncircumcised, or between barbarian and Scythia, slave and free man. There is only Christ: he is everything and he is in everything.”

4)In his final argument, what element of Spanish life does Las Casas appeal to? In your own words, explain one of his examples.