pageok
pageok
pageok
Vallodid debate bleg

1550, Spain's King Charles V, after hearing arguments in the Vallodid debate, decided that Indians could be enslaved and exploited with few humanitarian limitations.

Could a kind commenter please supply me with a cite for the above statement? I know there's stuff about Vallodid on the web, but I need a published book or scholarly journal article, for law review citation purposes. Thank you.

Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
If you spell the name of the town right, you'll have more success. The Wikipedia article on the Valladolid Debates links to this web page, which has plenty of footnotes. I imagine the book in note 3 would be one good place to start.


DK: U rock! Correct spelling, plus a google search, led to this bibliograhy,
http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/justification/newspain/bib/, from which I picked:
LEWIS HANKE,. ALL MANKIND IS ONE: A STUDY OF THE DISPUTATION BETWEEN BARTOLOMÉ DE LAS CASAS AND JUAN GINÉS DE SEPÚLVEDA IN 1550 ON THE INTELLECTUAL AND RELIGIOUSCAPACITY OF THE AMERICAN INDIANS (1974). Even better, U. of N. Illinois Press brought out a 2d edition in 1994, which I ordered from Amazon.


Thank you!!!
11.4.2007 7:38pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
A good source is:
Robert A. Williams, Jr. (1992) The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest. Oxford University Press.

It's really quite good in spite of the pomo-sounding title.
11.4.2007 8:02pm
Hoosier:
"It's really quite good in spite of the pomo-sounding title."

Heh.

(I don't read books or articles with the word "discourses" in the title.)
11.4.2007 9:33pm
Sasha Volokh (mail) (www):
I read "pomo-sounding title" as "porno-sounding title" and had to go back to the title to convince myself that yes, "discourses of conquest" did sound a bit racy.
11.4.2007 10:14pm
Stephen Aslett (mail):
Best I've been able to come up with is the following:

Christina Jacqueline Johns, The Origins of Violence in Mexican Society 158 (1995) ("The result of the Great Debate at Valladolid was inconclusive. The council that heard the arguments never rendered a collective opinion of the issues and no tangible royal policy resulted. The inconclusiveness of the Great Debate, far from being an indication of royal ineptness, was evidence of the Crown's ability to orchestrate the justification of its own interests. The whole history of royal action from the departure of the expedition to the Great Debate illustrates the Crown's growing sophistication in legitimating its own economic interests in the realm of ideology. Ferdinand and Isabella had developed the manipulation of ideological consensus to a fine art and passed on that legacy to Charles V. . . . Under Charles V, by allowing Las Casas to publish his opinions and debate his side of the argument regarding Indian treatment, the Spanish Crown effectively made itself appear as an impartial adjudicator of affairs, sincerely concerned with the welfare of the Indians. But Spanish policy with regard to the conquest and subsequent exploitation of the Indians of Mexico was guided by economic concerns that could not be changed and that made conquest and exploitation necessary.").

All the sources I've looked at, like this one, indicate that Charles V didn't officially side with either Las Casas or Sepulveda but continued Spain's de facto policy of killing and enslaving Indians. (Interesting stuff. I'd never heard of the Valladolid debate before.)
11.4.2007 10:32pm
one of many:
Pretty sure you're not going to be able to find a source to support that claim, and if you do I would distrust it. If anything Charles became more convinced the Indians could not be enslaved and exploited after the Vallodolid debates. While the practice in the New Spain may have gone in that direction, Charles I (Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire was Charles I of Spain) still adheared to the New Law (1542) for the most part and it was later that Phillip II of Spain shifted policy towards the one you are refering to. Of course, Charles was dead by 1556 so, given the travel times and autonomy of local government, even if he had decided upon wholesale enslavement that any change of policy would have had much effect in New Spain.

JH Parry gives a fairly good overview of Spanish policy with regards to treating of Indians in The Audienicia of New Galicia in the Sixteenth Century: A study in Spanish Colonial Government(Cambridge University Press 1948) if you cannot find something more recent.
11.4.2007 11:08pm
one of many:
Ugh, just remembered, Charles abdicated in 1556 and died in 1558. oops. also insert there would have been little if any after "that" in the terminal, meandering sentence of the first paragraph.
11.5.2007 12:54am
Duncan Frissell (mail):
But even more important, did JUAN GINÉS DE SEPÚLVEDA or his relatives give name to Sepulveda Blvd in LA leading to the famous corner "Pico and Sepulveda"?
11.5.2007 11:35am
Portia (mail):
Heres the best I could find. I agree with the previous commentators -- most of the cites came to the opposite conclusion as you seem to want to argue. Sorry for some formatting errors, this is copied from PDFs:

Without recounting their arguments, it is not too much
to say that Sepulveda's ideas failed to win official approval. Spain, through the
mouth of las Casas, made a substantial contribution toward the development of
one of the most important hypotheses ever set forth-the idea that the Indians
discovered by Spain in the New World were not beasts, not slaves by nature,
not childlike creatures with a limited understanding, but rather men capable of
becoming Christians, with the right to enjoy their property, political liberty, and
human dignity, who should be incorporated into the Spanish and Christian civiliza-
tion rather than being enslaved or destroyed. "When las Casas spoke at Valladolid
for the American Indians, his argumentation . . . strengthened the hands of all
those who in his time and the centuries to follow worked in the belief that all
the peoples of the world are human beings with the potentialities and respon-
sibilities of men."41 [fn]
Source: Carl Watner, "All Mankind is One": The Libertarian Tradition in Sixteenth Century Spain, 8 J. Libertarian Stud. 293, 302 (1987)
11.5.2007 12:18pm
Portia (mail):
Another cite, one that comes out at least moderately on your side can be found at (as it is JStor, I cant copy the exact text)

John Herbert Roper &Lolita G. Brockington, Slave Revolt, Slave Debate: A Comparison, 45 Phylon 98, 105-06.

It basically argues that the debates were inconclusive, but Sepulveda won, at least in that the wars of conquest continued.
11.5.2007 12:35pm
Sasha Volokh (mail) (www):
Duncan Frissell: No, Sepulveda Blvd. in L.A. was named after a Francisco (?) Sepulveda, a 19th-century mayor of L.A.
11.5.2007 3:58pm