Valladolid Debate - Debate

Debate

Though Las Casas tried to bolster his position by recounting his experiences with the encomienda system's mistreatment of the Indians, the debate remained on largely theoretical grounds. Sepúlveda took a more secular approach than Las Casas, basing his arguments largely on Aristotle and the Humanist tradition to assert the Indians were naturally predisposed to slavery, and could be subjected to bondage or war if necessary. Las Casas objected, arguing that Aristotle's definition of the "barbarian" and the natural slave did not apply to the Indians, who were fully capable of reason and should be brought to Christianity without force or coercion.

Sepúlveda put forward many of the arguments from his Latin dialogue "Democrates Secundus sive de justid belli causis", to assert that the barbaric traditions of the Indians justified waging war against them. The Spaniards, according to Sepúlveda, were entitled to punish other peoples for performing such vicious practices as idolatry, sodomy, and cannibalism. Wars had to be waged "in order to uproot crimes that offend nature". This was an obligation to which every Spaniard, whether secular or religious, had to conform.

Sepúlveda issued four main justifications for enslaving Indians. First, their natural condition deemed them fit for slavery, and it was the responsibility of the Spaniards to act as masters. Second, Spaniards were entitled to prevent Indians from engaging in cannibalism as they saw fit. Third, the same went for Indians who sacrificed innocents to their Gods. Fourth, slavery was an effective method of converting Indians to Christianity. He drew on Aristotle's theory of natural slavery and the Humanist tradition to argue that the Indians were predisposed to slavery, and could be subjected to bondage or war if need be.

Las Casas was prepared for part of his opponent's discourse, since he, upon hearing about the existence of Sepúlveda's Democrates Secundus, had written in the late 1540s his own Latin work, the "Apologia", which aimed at debunking his opponent's theological arguments that Aristotle's definition of the "barbarian" and the natural slave did not apply to the Indians, who were fully capable of reason and should be brought to Christianity without force.

Las Casas pointed out that every individual was obliged by international law to prevent the innocent from being treated unjustly. He also cited Saint Augustine and Saint John Chrysostom, both of whom had opposed the use of force to punish crimes against nature. Human sacrifice was wrong, but it would be better to avoid war by any means possible. The Indians had to be converted to Christianity non-forcefully.

The arguments presented by Las Casas and Sepúlveda to the junta of Valladolid remained too abstract, with both sides stubbornly clinging to their opposite theories that ironically relied on similar, if not the same, theoretical authorities, which were interpreted to suit their respective arguments.