INTRODUCTION

In 1550, King Charles V of Spain ordered a council in the city of Valladolid. He instructed a group of judges and clergy to debate whether Spain’s incorporation of Indigenous peoples of the Americas into Spanish rule through force was justifiable under moral and natural law. Additionally, they were to evaluate the consequences of using force against the natives from a Christian perspective.

At the council convened in Valladolid by royal decree, two humanist scholars, Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda and Bartolomé de las Casas, represented opposing views. In this debate about the fate of the Indigenous peoples, Sepúlveda argued that waging war against the so-called "barbaric" natives was legitimate to spread the Gospel. On the other hand, Las Casas firmly opposed this stance, asserting that war was by no means a justifiable method to incorporate the natives into Spanish rule. Instead, he advocated for peaceful persuasion as the most appropriate approach in line with Christian values.

This article will first provide a brief overview of Spain’s societal state during the years 1550–1551 when the Valladolid Council was held. Subsequently, it will evaluate the arguments presented by Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda and Bartolomé de las Casas regarding whether war against the natives was justifiable under natural law and Christian doctrine.

SPAIN IN 1550

While the Ottoman Empire was enjoying its most powerful and magnificent era during the mid-15th to late-16th centuries, the Dark Ages had almost entirely ended in Western Europe. During these years, Europe saw significant developments in economic, geographical, religious, and other domains. Among these, the Age of Exploration was the most transformative, bringing an influx of gold to European states and facilitating the rise of the transatlantic slave trade. Motivated by dreams of bypassing the Turks to directly access the wealth of the gold and spice-rich lands of India and the East, Spanish explorers (conquistadors) joined forces with the Portuguese to lead these explorations. Under Spanish patronage, Ferdinand Magellan, for instance, circumnavigated South America, crossed the Pacific Ocean, and reached the Philippines. By the late 16th century, Europeans had realized that the Americas were a distinct continent, not part of Asia.

The Age of Exploration not only transformed Spain’s economy but also spurred its judges and clergy to formulate new legal ideas. Spanish conquistadors encountered pagan tribes in conquered territories (such as Mexico, Peru, and Chile) whose religions, cultures, and languages were entirely alien to them. Since the early years of exploration, a central question in Europe had been whether these peculiar people could be incorporated into Spanish rule through war. The Valladolid Council of 1550–1551 marked the apex of this long-standing debate.

A 1550 FORESHADOWING OF HUMAN RIGHTS: BARTOLOMÉ DE LAS CASAS

Born around 1474 in Seville, Bartolomé de las Casas was a Spanish historian and Dominican missionary. As the first priest to be ordained in the Americas, Las Casas initially participated in the bloody conquest of Cuba in 1513 and was even granted an encomienda (a system that allocated a number of Indigenous laborers to settlers). However, deeply affected by the injustices inflicted on the natives, Las Casas later persuaded King Charles V to adopt his plan for the establishment of “Free Indigenous Towns.” Refusing to remain silent about the atrocities committed by Spaniards, he authored The Devastation of the Indies, a work chronicling the massacres of the native peoples.

Las Casas is considered by some contemporaries to be a pioneer of human rights. A successor to Dominican thinker Francisco de Vitoria, he carried forward the banner of human rights. As this article will discuss, Las Casas staunchly argued at the Valladolid Council that the Indigenous peoples had the right to determine their own destiny.

A DEBATE IN VALLADOLID

According to the dogmatic scholar Sepúlveda, the natives were born into inferior conditions and lacked rationality, which made them natural slaves (homunculi). If the barbaric natives refused to accept the rules of their more civilized Spanish counterparts, war against them would be deemed legitimate. Rooting his arguments in Aristotelian philosophy, Sepúlveda identified four main justifications for the legitimacy of war against the natives:

1. The Indigenous peoples of the Americas are barbarians.

2. They are guilty under natural law.

3. The natives oppress and kill innocent people.

4. As infidels, they must be evangelized and converted to Christianity.

At the Valladolid Council, Las Casas, committed to preserving human dignity, aimed to dismantle Sepúlveda’s corrupt arguments. However, as those familiar with history know, the atrocities committed against the Indigenous peoples tragically continued unabated.

Next, let us examine the propositions and counter-propositions of this historic debate in detail.

SEPÚLVEDA'S FIRST CLAIM: AMERICAN NATIVES ARE BARBARIANS

The nationalist thinker Sepúlveda based this claim on Aristotle's definition of barbarism in Politics. Aristotle divided people into two groups: civilized people and barbarians. In his Politics, Aristotle defined barbarians as those whose emotions govern their reason by nature, while civilized people were those who could act rationally without being influenced by emotions. Applying this primitive and distorted theory to the American natives, Sepúlveda claimed that these natives were creatures no different from apes (homunci) who thought with emotions rather than reason. He argued that more civilized, rational-thinking Spaniards had no choice but to wage war to assert dominance over them.

LAS CASAS’ COUNTERARGUMENT

While Las Casas did not object to Aristotle's theory of barbarism, he argued that Sepúlveda had distorted and generalized the theory to apply it to the American natives. Speaking at the council, Las Casas explained Aristotle's doctrine of barbarism in the following way to defend the claim that American natives were not barbarians:

According to Las Casas, Aristotle's doctrine recognized four types of barbarians. The first group consisted of those who exhibited cruel and savage behavior, lacking the human faculty of judgment. The second group included those incapable of speaking to express themselves. The third group lacked justice and an understanding of humanity. The fourth and final group consisted of those who were non-Christian. According to Las Casas, American natives could not be classified into any of these groups. The natives had civilized and organized cities governed by strict rules. He argued that the laws practiced by the natives were no less advanced than those of Ancient Greece and Rome. If the natives were to be considered barbarians, then it would also necessitate considering Ancient Greeks and Romans as barbarian tribes.

Advocating for human rights long before their formal recognition, Las Casas argued that the languages of the natives were not primitive but rather grammatically complex and melodically beautiful. He claimed that the act of human sacrifice, by itself, was not sufficient to label them as barbarians, as similar practices had occurred throughout history in other civilizations. Like those historical examples, the groups practicing human sacrifice among the natives were a minority.

The scholar argued that the natives’ pagan beliefs also did not make them barbarians. To assert otherwise would mean acknowledging that the ancestors of Europeans were barbarians as well.

SEPÚLVEDA'S SECOND CLAIM: AMERICAN NATIVES ARE GUILTY UNDER NATURAL LAW

According to Sepúlveda, an advocate of Spanish imperialism, the barbaric, cannibalistic, and heretical natives who violated natural law could be stopped by nothing but war. The natives’ actions, which violated Spanish traditions and laws, demanded punishment. Crimes against the laws of nature had to be eradicated at their root, and it was the responsibility of all Spaniards, regardless of their beliefs.

LAS CASAS’ COUNTERARGUMENT

Las Casas countered this claim by arguing that punishment required proper judicial proceedings. The king or the pope had no authority to judge heretics. Therefore, Christians could not judge the natives for being pagans or for their cultural norms. Historically, Muslims and Jews had lived under Christian rulers and adhered to the same civil laws without being judged or punished for their beliefs.

Different religious communities living together were to be judged according to their respective religious laws. As the church's authority extended only to Christians, it could not judge pagans who were unaware of Christianity. The natives, as rational beings, could select their own judges. While punishing heretics was indeed the church's responsibility, being pagan did not automatically make one a heretic. Thus, Las Casas argued against Spanish wars against the natives, citing the lack of jurisdiction and the inadequacy of paganism alone as a cause for punishment.

SEPÚLVEDA'S THIRD CLAIM: THE NATIVES OPPRESS AND KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE

At the council, Sepúlveda claimed that the Aztecs sacrificed humans to their gods, torturing them before killing them. He argued that Spaniards had a duty to protect these innocent victims, and this could only be achieved through war. If Spaniards did not intervene in these massacres, there would be no one else to help the innocent victims. The Spaniards, he insisted, had to assist the innocent natives who were unjustly slaughtered.

Francisco de Vitoria, a predecessor of Las Casas and an early advocate for native rights, agreed with Sepúlveda that such killings necessitated intervention. However, Las Casas went further, arguing that even cannibalism did not justify war against the natives.

LAS CASAS’ COUNTERARGUMENT

While Las Casas faced significant difficulty opposing Sepúlveda’s stance on preventing cannibalism, he pointed to prominent Christian leaders like Saint Augustine, who had avoided waging war even against cannibalistic and pagan communities. He clarified that he was not defending cannibalism but argued that waging war on the natives would cause more harm than the practice of human sacrifice itself.

Las Casas believed that the natives, who were living in a primitive stage of human development, should not be massacred. Instead, they should be approached with tolerance, the Bible should be preached to them, and the principles of civilization should be taught through persuasion.

SEPÚLVEDA'S FOURTH CLAIM: NATIVES ARE INFIDELS, AND CHRISTIANITY CAN BE PREACHED TO THEM THROUGH FORCE

Sepúlveda argued that war was essential for the dissemination of the Bible to pagans. Just as Las Casas himself had initially engaged in missionary activities in the New World during the early years of exploration, Sepúlveda believed that if such efforts were hindered, war against the natives was inevitable. Citing examples from the Bible, Sepúlveda claimed that it was a religious duty to use force to ensure that pagans accepted Christianity.

LAS CASAS’ COUNTERARGUMENT

Las Casas emphasized that the Bible could be interpreted in different ways depending on the context of events, but these interpretations should not deviate from their purpose, as Sepúlveda had done. Las Casas cited Biblical passages demonstrating that war against non-Christians was a last resort. He reiterated that Sepúlveda had forgotten the distinction between pagans and heretics, as the American natives were pagans, not heretics. Las Casas maintained that the natives should be converted to Christianity through persuasion, not force.

DID HUMAN RIGHTS EMERGE IN THE NEW WORLD?

At the Valladolid Debate, Las Casas argued that the natives had no claims over Spanish lands, nor did they attack the Spaniards. Therefore, Spain was not in a position to defend itself. On the contrary, it was the American natives who were under threat and thus had the right to legitimate self-defense. Las Casas further maintained that God could punish those who, despite knowing the verses of the Gospel, rejected them, but that God would not punish those who were unaware of what Christianity was.

The Valladolid Debate holds an important place in history as the first council where the application of law beyond national borders and the limits of law and state sovereignty were discussed.

Following in the footsteps of Francisco de Vitoria, considered the founder of international law and the first defender of native rights, Bartolomé de Las Casas sought to protect the rights of natives in the conquered lands. His only leverage in this pursuit was their inherent humanity. In 1550, Las Casas began to outline the boundaries of what we now recognize as human rights, which derive their dignity from humanity itself.

However, the Valladolid Debate, being merely a theoretical discussion, did little beyond keeping the plight of the natives in the European spotlight for years. Thousands of natives, who gained no tangible rights as a result of the debate, were brutally massacred.

Although Las Casas’ views resurfaced during the colonial period and were adapted to the era’s discourse, no practical measures were ever taken from the time of the conquests to the present day. The cultural artifacts of the New World’s peoples were buried along with their creators under the soil.

Even though other European states expressed opposition to the prolonged massacres, their objections were never grounded in moral values. In other words, the European states that criticized Spain and Portugal’s massacres against the natives did so merely to prevent Spain and Portugal from achieving economic superiority over them. Thus, the massacre of American natives was never effectively stopped. So much so that even Las Casas eventually abandoned advocating the ideas he had presented at the Valladolid Debate.

THE AMERICAN NATIVES WERE NOT ONLY UNABLE TO DETERMINE THEIR OWN DESTINY BUT WERE ALSO EXCLUDED FROM THE VERY DISCUSSION WHERE THEIR DESTINY WAS DECIDED.

BIBLIOGAPHY

AKAL, Cemal Bali: Modern Düşüncenin Doğuşu İspanyol Altın Çağı, Dost Kitabevi, 7.Baskı, Kasım 2016

TANİLLİ, Server  :  Uygarlık Tarihi, Çağdaş Yayınları, 10. Baskı, Temmuz 1997

HERNANDEZ, Bonar Ludwing: The Las Csas- Sepúlveda Controversy: 1550-1551

ENCYCLOPEDIA, AnaBritannica, Las Cas, Bartolomé de 1994 Edition, XX. Cilt, Syf.247