Historical Perspectives on Bartolome De Las Casas ______

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON BARTOLOME DE LAS CASAS ______

A Thesis Presented To the Faculty of California State University Dominguez Hills ______In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Humanities ______by Ivan Luvier Garcia Fall 2017

I dedicate my thesis to my wife, children, and church family at Emmanuel Outreach

Center and New Jerusalem. I want to express a special feeling of gratitude to my parents,

Manuel and Maria Elena Medina, whose prayers and support have carried me since the beginning of my college days. I also dedicate this thesis to, Rene Sanchez, who inspired me to want to teach history at the college level, and to the memory of, Shirley Sanchez, whose support and words of encouragement will never be forgotten.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank God for giving me the strength to continue during very challenging times. I also want to thank my committee members for setting time aside to read my paper. A very special thanks to my mentor, Dr. William Cumiford, for his patience throughout the entire process. Thank you Dr. Jacqueline Shannon and

Dr. Christopher Monty for agreeing to serve on my committee. I would like to also acknowledge and thank everyone at the HUX office for being helpful whenever I needed assistance. Finally, I would like to thank Michelle Molina, Jessica Martinez, and Candi

Rangel for their willingness to provide feedback.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

DEDICATION……..……………………………………………………………………...ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………...…………………………...iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………iv

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………….…………....v

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION…...…………………………………………………………………1

Bartolome De Las Casas…………………………………………………………..3 Literature Review………………………………………………………………….5 Titles and Roles……………………………………………………………………8

2. VALLADOLID DEBATE………………….…………………………………………13

3. LAS CASAS AND THE INDIANS…………………………………………………..25

4. LAS CASAS AND SLAVERY……………………………………………………….37

5. THE IMAGE OF LAS CASAS.………………………………………………………45

6. CONCLUSION.……………………………………………………………………....50

WORKS CITED………………………………………………………………………....53

ABSTRACT

Whether in the past or in the present, any individual who went from being a slave owner to becoming a member of a religious order and an ardent advocate for slaves is anticipated to provide people with ample information from their experiences. In some cases, depending on the impact such individuals make, the discussion on whether they made a positive or negative contribution to society can continue for centuries after that individual has departed. This is true especially in the case of Fray Bartolome De Las

Casas, who not only gave his contemporaries much to debate, but also has given historians long after his death reasons to argue over the impact of his life and writings.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The reputation and influence of Las Casas and his ideals have always varied with the social, political, and intellectual conditions of different times and places. Benjamin Keen

Fray Bartolome De Las Casas (1484-1566) was a controversial figure who played a major role in the development of Colonial Latin America. His life and works were such that historians have debated his legacy for centuries. The primary focus of this paper is to analyze historian’s views on this important Church figure. The diverse views about

Las Casas among historians illustrates the strong disagreement that exists over his roles, as both cleric and political activist.

The work on behalf of the Indians is without a doubt the part of Las Casas’ life which historians discuss the most and the subject most praised and criticized regarding the friar’s life. Some historians defend Las Casas as a man of integrity who devoted most of his life for what he felt was morally correct. Others, however, argue that he was a political activist with little or no connection with the people he is often credited as defending.

The association of Las Casas with black slavery in the Americas is another heavily debated topic among historians. Some argue that a recommendation given by Las

Casas to the Spanish king resulted in the importation of thousands of black slaves who served as replacements for the natives. However, other historians dismiss this accusation as false and provide examples to prove that Las Casas should not be held responsible for

the introduction of this iniquity.

Chapter One is an overview of Las Casas’ life, beginning with his experience in witnessing the successful return to Spain by Christopher Columbus. However, special attention will be given to Las Casas’ experience as an encomendero as well as to the life- changing experience he underwent in preparing a sermon. Besides introducing some of the titles and roles that have been attributed to Las Casas during and after his lifetime, this chapter will also briefly explain the Catholic Church’s role in the conquest and settlement of the Americas, therefore, a background will be provided of both the

Patronato Real, and the encomienda system, which shaped the colonization of the

Americas.

Chapter Two begins with the primary concerns that arose from the Spaniard’s interaction with the natives; such as their nature and the legality of the war waged against them. These two issues were eventually debated by Las Casas and Juan Gines de

Sepulveda in Valladolid from 1550-1551. Although this chapter gives attention to both

Sepulveda’s arguments against the Indians and Las Casas’ rebuttals to those arguments, most of the chapter is devoted to analyzing the various views of historians on the debate and its outcome.

Las Casas is primarily known for his unfailing commitment to bringing justice for the Indians; this is the part of his life that has received both the most praise and criticism among historians. Therefore, Chapter Three is designated to discuss how historians view Las Casas’ work as an advocate for the Indians. Included in the discussion here are some historian’s arguments that Las Casas was successful in

completing his objectives, as well as some harsh assessments of the friar in which he is viewed as a failure.

Chapter Four will discuss Las Casas’ presumed role in the importation of black slaves. Historians who hold him responsible for the introduction of black slavery in the

New World point to a recommendation given by Las Casas to the Crown as evidence to support their accusations. Not surprisingly, other historians counter these accusations by pointing to evidence exonerating Las Casas regarding the promotion of American black slavery.

Due to its participation in the colonization of the Americas, the Roman Catholic

Church is continually attacked by historians. Since Las Casas was a Catholic priest, his image is also being tarnished by anti-clerical scholars. Therefore, Chapter Five is set apart to discuss the views of historians who attack Las Casas, and of those who defend his reputation despite his association with the Church. Also, this chapter predicts whether more historians will become increasingly critical of Las Casas in the future based on the sources used in this research.

Bartolome De Las Casas

Bartolome De Las Casas was born in Seville in 1484 into a family of farmers and merchants. As a young boy, Las Casas had the opportunity to witness the arrival of

Christopher Columbus in Seville, along with a group of captured Indians during a procession of Palm Sunday in 1493. Although his father and uncle accompanied

Columbus on the Second Voyage, Las Casas remained in school where he studied the classics and canon law (Sullivan 2).

Only a few years later, in 1502, Las Casas found himself in Hispaniola with his father.

The encomienda system, in which colonizers were compensated for abandoning their homeland by being granted an allotment of Indians slaves, was already in place when Las

Casas set foot in the New World. Like every other encomendero, Las Casas was assigned a few Indians for his own personal gain, which included the responsibility of providing the Indians with a Christian education. Besides taking care of his land and the

Indians he was entrusted with, Las Casas also traveled the surrounding areas with

Spanish soldiers (Sullivan 2). It was in these expeditions that Las Casas witnessed the inhumane acts committed by the Spaniards which led him to write A Short Account of the

Destruction of the Indies in 1542.

Las Casas returned to Spain in 1506 to continue his religious education and to become a priest. He was ordained in 1507 in Rome and returned to the New World two years later where he served as an Indian catechist while still enjoying the privileges of an encomendero. Despite having heard a passionate sermon by Friar Antonio de

Montesinos in which he denounced the crimes committed against the Indians by the

Spaniards, Las Casas remained reluctant to renounce his right to own land and slaves.

However, his days as a slave-owner did not last long. Like Saul of Tarsus who experienced an immediate change of heart while en route to Damascus, so too did Las

Casas begin to have change of heart after participating in an expedition to Cuba in which he witnessed horrible acts against the Indians. But the experience which brought him under heavy conviction took place when he came across a biblical passage that read:

If you offer as a sacrifice an animal that you have obtained dishonestly, it

is defective and unacceptable. The Most High gets no pleasure from

sacrifices made by ungodly people; no amount of sacrifices can make up

for their sins. Anyone who steals an animal from the poor to offer as a

sacrifice is like someone who kills a boy before his father’s eyes. Food

means life itself to poor people, and taking it away from them is murder.

It is murder to deprive someone of his living or to cheat an employee of

his wages. Sirach 34:18-22.

After this spiritual awakening, Las Casas began to stand up against the injustice of the Spaniards and spent the rest of his life trying to lessen the suffering of the natives.

His desperate attempts to bring relief to the Indians included a controversial recommendation to the Spanish monarch that black slaves be imported and serve as replacements. His continued advocacy for the Indians eventually resulted in the passage of the Spanish New Laws of 1542 which temporarily abolished the encomienda system.

Years later, Las Casas found himself defending the Indians in a historic debate in his home country.

Literature Review

This thesis will analyze the views of historians on Las Casas from the early 20th century to the first decade of the new millennium. Analyzing the wide range of views on

Las Casas provides a more than balanced view of this important figure in Latin American history. While some of Las Casas’ works are referenced in this thesis, the views of historians take center stage in the paper.

As stated above, views of historians on Las Casas range from extremely favorable

to unfavorable. An example of an extremely favorable view of Las Casas is found in

Paul S. Vickery’s, Bartolome de las Casas: Great Prophet of the Americas (2006), which portrays Las Casas as someone who “functioned as a prophet or spokesman for God and as an intermediary between the Amerindians and the monarchy” (Vickery 2). Focusing on the life of Las Casas after a genuine conversion, Vickery elevates Las Casas to the level of the Old Testament prophets who reminded those in power of what

God expected from them.

While some historians accuse Las Casas of being responsible for the importation of black slaves, some individuals, like Francis Patrick Sullivan, disagree. In Indian

Freedom: The Cause of Bartolome De Las Casas 1484-1566 (1995), Sullivan states that it was not Las Casas, but rather the sugar industry that promoted black slavery in the

Americas. Sullivan also claims that “a reinterpretation of Las Casas must necessarily move beyond the mythological dimensions of his legacy, and beyond the multiple-legend construct, in an attempt to define him in light of his participation in the dialectical reality of the construction of a new world built on the ruins of another” (Sullivan 5).

Las Casas also finds favor among historians such as Carlos Sempat Assadourian, who defends him against those who argue that his acts of kindness towards the natives were calculated to obtain a higher rank within the Roman Catholic Church. In, Fray

Bartolome de Las Casas Obispo: La Naturaleza Miserable De Las Naciones Indianas y

El Derecho de la Iglesia. Un Escrito de 1545 (1991), Assadourian argues that Las Casas never intended to obtain special honors in the Church, but did create an agenda “to become, whether through formal or informal means, the protector and representative, of

the indigenous people at the royal court” (Assadourian 422).

Historians who hold a slightly negative view of Las Casas include Sylvia Wynter.

In New Seville and the Conversion Experience of Bartolome de Las Casas (1984),

Wynter holds Las Casas responsible for the importation of black slaves even if his recommendation of black slavery was made under false assumptions. According to

Wynter, Las Casas did not propose:

the substitution of white and black slaves for Indians slaves per se, but

instead the substitution of enslaved men and women who can be

categorized as justly enslaved within the system of classification by

Catholic Christian doctrine, for a group of enslaved men and women who

cannot be so classified. (Wynter 47)

Historian Daniel Castro is a perfect example of those who hold a much more negative view of Las Casas and places him at the same level as the other Spaniards who persecuted and subdued the natives. In Another Face of Empire (2007), Castro argues that, instead of viewing Las Casas “as the ultimate champion of indigenous causes, we must see the Dominican friar as the incarnation of a more benevolent, paternalist form of ecclesiastical, political, cultural, and economic imperialism rather than as a unique paradigmatic figure” (Castro 8). Castro also believes that Las Casas “never appeared to have grasped the contradiction implied in the act of imposing an alien religious belief, like Christianity, on a people who already had well-defined theological beliefs and carefully constructed cosmogonies” (9).

Titles and Roles

As one of the most controversial figures of the 16th century, Las Casas assumed various titles and fulfilled many roles. For example, his advocacy on behalf of the

Indians earned him the title of “Protector of the Indians,” while his religious work among indigenous Americans resulted in him being considered an “Apostle to the Indians.” But even more profoundly, Las Casas has been described by some historians as being the

“Conscience of Catholic Spain” for being critical of his countrymen over the mistreatment of the Indians.

In challenging land laws favorable to the Catholic Church, Las Casas fulfilled the role of being an agrarian reformer. He is also considered to be an “Initiator of the Protest

Narrative” resulting from his written works denouncing mistreatment of the Indians. In documenting the early Spanish expeditions, Las Casas emerged as the first European historian in America, and also was honored as the first Catholic priest to be ordained in the New World.

The Catholic Church and the Spanish Conquest

The conquest and colonization of the Americas by Spain could not have been possible without the participation of the Roman Catholic Church. This collaboration between the Church and State, known as the Patronato Real, was the first of its kind.

Although some historians view the Patronato Real as a revived version of the patronage system during the Roman emperor Justinian’s reign, the differences are very significant.

The patronage system under Justinian was one in which he took on a role as “Protector of

Christianity,” but went further to dictate religious matters such as church doctrine and

the appointment of bishops (Shiels 10). On the other hand, the Patronato Real was a system in which Church and Crown worked together and recognized each other’s authority. For the Crown this meant that to get involved with religious matters it needed permission from Rome.

The Patronato Real began during the final stage of the Renconquista.

King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella knew that it in order to maintain unity within its borders, it would need the loyalty and allegiance of those living in the newly recaptured territories; especially those of the clerics (Shiels 5). In order to accomplish this, the

Crown made the request to the pope that it be granted all patronage in Granada.

Realizing that granting this request also meant an expansion for Christianity, Pope

Innocent VIII issued the Bull of Granada on December 13, 1486, in which it was determined that:

The crown accepts the burden of furnishing support for all religious

actions within the territory: the building and endowment of places of

divine worship and the maintenance of its clergy in carrying out the duties

annexed to that charge. And it receives the right to constitute the personnel

of the clerical body through the establishment of the episcopate (and other

higher clergy such as abbots of monasteries) by the process of

presentation. Lesser presentation usually remains with the bishops. The

papacy guarantees to honor the royal presentations unless a fraud is

evident and to confirm and provide for them up to installation in their

benefices. (Shiels 61)

Although this bull was issued specifically for Granada and the Canary Islands, it served as a precedent for the Patronato De Las Indias.

When the Americas were discovered, the Crown asked for the same privileges in these lands and any future acquired territories. For King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, a primary objective was to create in these new lands the same pattern of life that already

existed in the homeland (Shiels 18). On July 28, 1508, the Crown received what it wanted; full patronage over the church in the Americas. Julius II, with religious interests in mind, granted the Patronato Real de Las Indias, in which he states:

we make the following grants to the same King Ferdinand and Queen

Juana to the future kings of Castile and Leon who may be reigning at the

time. In the islands and regions of that sea, whether already acquired or

later to be acquired, no one may without their express consent construct,

build, and erect the greater churches. We grant the right of patronage and

the right to present suitable persons to the churches of Ayguaza, Magua,

and Bayuna, already mentioned, and to all other metropolitan or cathedral

churches, monasteries, and postpontifical dignities, and in all collegiate

churches to the principal dignities. (Shiels 112)

With these new privileges, the Crown now had the necessary tools to shape the colonization of Latin America.

The Encomienda

Just as the Patronato required the partnership of the Church and Crown, so too did the encomienda require the cooperation of the encomendero and the doctrinero: “The

encomendero, usually a conquistador or his descendant, was entrusted with the integration of his Amerindian wards into the social and economic life of the Spanish

Empire and helped the doctrinero establish the cultural, moral, and religious patterns of

Catholicism”(Shiels 18). The need for such a system can be attributed to the Spanish belief that the Indians were pagans who needed to learn about Christianity and to be integrated into a civilized society. In order to accomplish the mission of acculturating the

Indians, the Church sent religious orders, as well as secular priests, to initiate the process of converting the Indians (Schwaller 55).

While it is common knowledge that many Indians were oppressed under the encomienda, this was not the intention of the Crown. Not only were the encomenderos forbidden to mistreat the Indians, the Crown made it clear in their instructions to

Columbus that:

those who will later on come from here treat the said Indians with truly

consideration attention. These men should give them no offense. Rather,

with each and all of them there should be close association and

friendships. They should do every good they can for the Indians.

Likewise, the admiral will be liberal toward them and given them presents

out of the merchandise of their majesties that is taken along for barter, and

he will show them much honor. And in the case any person or persons

mistreat the said Indians in any way whatever, the admiral as viceroy and

governor of their highnesses, will chastise them in exemplary fashion,

using the powers of their highnesses which he brings with him. (Shiels 94)

The wishes of the Crown were not respected, and rather than improving the lives of the natives as instructed, many of the Spaniards saw in the encomienda an opportunity to use the Indians for their own profit. And in this process, many natives were severely mistreated or killed.

CHAPTER TWO

VALLADOLID DEBATE

For the Creator of every being has not so despised these peoples of the New World that he willed them to lack reason and made them like brute animals, so that they would be called barbarians, savages, wile men, and brute, as they think or imagine. Bartolome De Las Casas

The first Spaniards to set foot in the New World were without a doubt impressed by the distinct culture they encountered and the abundance of precious stones. They were also overtaken by a great curiosity over the nature of the Indians and their perceived capacity for becoming Christians (Hanke 3). As history demonstrates, when diverse groups encounter, differences in color, culture, and values, usually result in one group holding an unfavorable perception of the other. The colonization of the Americas was no different as many of the Spaniards began to see these differences as an indicator that the natives were not capable of adopting Christianity.

In, All Mankind is One: A Study of the Disputation Between Bartolome de Las

Casas and Juan Gines de Sepulveda in 1550 on the Intellectual and Religious Capacity of the American Indians (1974), Lewis Hanke explains that as the colonization of the

Americas continued, “ Spaniards encountered some Indians whose color, culture, religious ideas, and values were so different from their own that they began to doubt that they could be Christianized,” and that as a result there developed a “polarization between the two extremes- what might be called the ‘dirty dog’ and ‘noble savage’ schools of thought—although there were many different and more subtle shades of opinion in

between (9).” The “dirty dog perception” Hanke mentions is clearly one in which the natives are seen as less than human, whereas the “noble savage perception” is one that views the Indians as being gentle, friendly, and with the capacity to become acculturated

(Hanke 4).

The discussion regarding the nature of the Indians, along with reports of crimes committed against them, played a key role in setting the stage for a debate between Las

Casas and the Spanish theologian Juan Gines de Sepulveda, who was already known at the time for defending the interests of the Spanish Empire. From 1550-1551, Charles V, summoned a council in Valladolid to hear both men’s arguments and determine if Spain’s war against the Indians was justified according to the requirements put forth by St.

Augustine.

Those familiar with the writings of St. Augustine know that he condemned any war initiated out of greed and love of violence. But he also wrote that some wars may be just and necessary, and even may be part of God’s overall plan. Despite the different examples of just war given by St. Augustine, he does not give a “clear-cut argument for the protection of the innocent, or noncombatants, in time of war” (Hartigan 202). As a result, much room was left open for interpretation, which resulted in the death or enslavement of countless natives.

St. Augustine’s lack of clarity on the issue of the innocent is without a doubt what allowed Sepulveda to conclude that the colonization of the Americas was in line with

God’s will. At the debate, Sepulveda submitted Democrates II and Apologia, in which he argues that Spain’s war against the natives was a justified war. Las Casas also submitted

his own written work in which he counters Sepulveda’s arguments, that portrayed the

Indians as sub-human.

Sepulveda’s interpretation of just war is based on four key arguments: first that the Indians were barbarians due to their savage behavior, and because they did not have a written language (Hanke 83). Las Casas countered this argument by stating that a true barbarian is anyone who is “cruel, inhuman, and merciless,” and who acts “out against human reason out of anger or native disposition, so that, putting aside decency, meekness, and humane moderation, he becomes hard, server, quarrelsome, unbearable, cruel, and plunges blindly into crimes that only the wildest beast of the forest would commit” (Las Casas 29). In Las Casas’ view, the Indians should not be categorized as real barbarians only because the Spaniards could not understand their way of communicating. Las Casas also went on to accuse the Spaniards as having surpassed all other barbarians because of their treatment of the Indians (Las Casas 29). Las Casas’ response not only exposed the Spaniards behavior as barbaric but also accuses them of hypocrisy.

Sepulveda’s second argument was that the Indians were being justly punished for their crimes against natural law, as well as for their sinful traditions of human sacrifice and idol worship (Hanke 87). While it is accurate that the natives were polytheistic and that some tribes practiced human sacrifice, Las Casas argued that “no matter how despicable the crimes they may commit against God, or even against religion among themselves or within their territories, neither the Church nor Christian rulers can take cognizance of them or punish them for these” (Las Casas 55). In other words, Spain had

no jurisdiction over non believers. Las Casas backs up his argument by pointing out what

St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, “It is not my business to pass judgment on those outside. Of those who are inside, you can surely be the judges. But of those who are outside, God is the judge.” Las Casas also pointed out that if it wasn’t Christ’s concern to judge unbelievers in this present life, then it should not be the concern of the Church (Las

Casas 71). Las Casas, however, accepts that the Roman Catholic Church has power to pass judgment over Christians who do not agree with its teachings. It is important to note that in Spain during Las Casas’ lifetime, Jews and Muslims were also categorized as heretics since they had the benefit of the gospel but refused the worship of Christ.

The third argument for just war was that the Indians practiced cannibalism and sacrificed innocent people as an offering to their pagan gods (Hanke 89). Interestingly,

Las Casas does not deny these accusations as false, but instead argues that “when unbelievers are discovered to be committing a crime of this kind (that is, killing infants for sacrifice or cannibalism), they are not always to be attacked by war, although it may be the business of the Church to try to prevent it” (Las Casas 190). He also argued that the majority of the Indians did not commit such acts, and that infanticide was only practiced by the rulers and priests. Las Casas also called for tolerance of certain evils, and that the death of a small number of innocent people was less evil than the complete destruction of entire kingdoms, cities, and strongholds (Las Casas 191). The friar also warned that the name of Christ was in danger of being blasphemed by non believers who became aware that Christians were killing women, children, and the elderly without a cause.

Sepulveda’s final argument was that war waged against the unbelievers can be justified if done with the intention of spreading Christianity (Hanke 95). Las Casas reacted to this by saying:

Indeed, I cannot cease being astonished by Sepulveda. For what spirit

leads a theologian, mature and well versed in humane letters, to set these

poisons before the world so that the far-flung Indian empires, contrary to

the law of Christ, would be prey for most savage thieves. (Las Casas 267)

Las Casas also pointed out how Christians of past times did not persuade rulers to convert pagans by warfare. He also argues that the preaching of the gospel with the use of armed forces is not in line with Christ’s teachings and that it resembled more the aggressive conversion tactics of Islam (Las Casas 302).

While pressing their respective points to the authorities, both Las Casas and

Sepulveda drew “upon the immense reservoir of doctrine and example that was represented in the Bible, the writings of Church fathers, and other authorities and events of the past as recorded by historians” (Hanke 83). In addition, both Las Casas and

Sepulveda also tried to “demonstrate that his opponent misunderstood, and at times, twisted, the words of these authorities and the experience of the past to fit his own argument” (Hanke 83). But despite Las Casas’ desperate tactics to win the debate, it must be noted that he was motivated by his experiences in the New World, whereas

Sepulveda represented the interests of the colonizers.

Although Sepulveda’s Democrates was not allowed to circulate, no official winner of the debate was declared, thus creating an opportunity for historians to offer

opinions as to who won. Interestingly, some historians view Las Casas as having lost the debate, while having won certain aspects of the exchange. Others, however, declare Las

Casas the winner but offer explanations as to why they feel his overall efforts to obtain justice for the Indians ended in failure.

An example of a view favorable to Las Casas, despite seeing him as the loser, is given by Hanke, who points out that while Las Casas failed in obtaining a resounding and public triumph for his ideas he did not back off from defending the Indians (114).

Therefore, at least in Hanke’s view, the debate in Valladolid was nothing more than a lost battle in a war which Las Casas continued to fight without any intention of withdrawing from attacking those who victimized the Indians.

Extremely favorable views of the friar include one in which Las Casas is declared not only the victor at Valladolid, but also the winner when one considers the eventual outcome of the encounter. Such a view is promoted by historian Manuel Gimenez

Fernandez who, in his essay, Fray Bartolome De Las Casas: A Biographical Sketch, argues that Las Casas’ victory over Sepulveda can be seen in how he found favor with the

Spanish king. To support his view, Fernandez points to how Las Casas secured royal decrees, or cedulas, and ordered the superiors of all the mendicant orders of Castille to provide him with missionaries (Friede and Keen 110). Another example cited by

Fernandez is how the Spanish monarchy named Las Casas the official royal representative in the general chapter of the Dominican Order held in Salamanca in May

1551 (Friede and Keen 110).

As previously mentioned, a major difference between Las Casas and Sepulveda

was that Las Casas’ view on the nature of the Indians was based on personal experience, whereas Sepulveda’s conclusions were derived from other factors, such as some unpleasant experiences encountered by some of the Spaniards. It is no surprise that the

“experience factor” has caused some historians to believe Las Casas’ arguments were superior to those of Sepulveda.

In Just War Against Barbarians: Revisiting the Valladolid Debates Between

Sepulveda and Las Casas (2011), Daniel Brunstetter and Dana Zartner superbly describe

Las Casas when they contend that “his experience in the New World showed him that the promises that lace Sepulveda’s arguments led to more damage than good, hindering the spreading of the faith rather than facilitating it” (Brunstetter and Zartner 743). Such a portrayal of Las Casas reminds us that he was not only concerned with how the Spaniards viewed the Indians, but also how Native Americans viewed Catholicism.

Las Casas’ experience with the natives is also a reason why some historians believe that he sought to de-stigmatize barbarians. Again, a perfect example is given by

Brunstetter and Zartner, who portray Las Casas as someone who cautioned against viewing the issue of just war in terms of only black or white, and as someone who believed that the human race should not be separated by categories of “civilized” or

“barbarian” (745). If this is true, Las Casas was not introducing a new approach to race relations, but instead re-emphasizing the biblical teaching that states that with God,

“there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11).

A much different yet favorable view of Las Casas is one that asserts a much better

argument than that of Sepulveda, but is considered to be the loser because his views were ahead of the acceptable social and cultural values of his time. Such a view is held by

Wynter, who tells us that while Las Casas lost the debate, his challenge to Sepulveda’s system of classification was important in leading to an “evolution of a genuine science of natural systems” (53). Wynter also continues to elevate the significance of Las

Casas’arguments against Sepulveda:

Las Casas at Valladolid, in putting forward propositions that no one had

put forward before, by introducing the novel conception there were was no

inherent difference of rational substance between the Spaniards and the

Indians since the practices such as human sacrifice seen as rational by the

Indians were in error which had its origin in natural reason, made possible

a science of human systems, as Columbus made it possible a science of

geography (by posting and proving there was no difference of zonal

substance, that the earth was the same everywhere, habitable in all five

zones and in the western antipodes as well as in Jerusalem); and as

Copernicus, Galileo then Newton made possible a science of natural

systems. (Wynter 54)

One can easily conclude that Wynter views Las Casas as a man who, in challenging the the dominant culture, played a great role in the transformation of the New World.

In Bartolome De Las Casas and the Conquest of the Americas (2001), Lawrence

A. Clayton does an excellent job describing the debate. Although Las Casas is portrayed favorably, Clayton takes issue with Las Casas’ arguments on human sacrifice. While

Clayton mentions that Las Casas did accept that the Indians were guilty of probable error in this area, he makes it clear that the friar made a lame argument in comparing the native’s practice of human sacrifice to Abraham’s attempt to sacrifice his son Isaac (134).

Clayton correctly reminds the reader that this biblical story does not validate human sacrifice prohibited in the Bible, but rather was a story of Abraham’s faith being tested.

It is unlikely that Las Casas missed the real moral of the story here; therefore, the comparison he made is a desperate attempt on his part to make the Indian’s practice of human sacrifice appear less evil than what it really was.

As stated, some historians hold an unfavorable view of Las Casas, even if he is acknowledged as having won the debate. Such an interesting view is held by Castro, who argues that, while Las Casas may have won the battle at Valladolid (as evidenced by

Sepulveda being denied permission to publish his book), he still failed to win the war

against Indian injustice, since he was unable to have the encomienda system permanently abolished (Castro 132). It is important to note that Castro’s unfavorable view of Las

Casas is more than just a bad grade for the outcome of the debate. Castro’s real issue with Las Casas is based on what he feels the friar actually represents in the debate. In describing the event, Castro says that it was:

a little more than a confrontation between two faces of the same empire.

One belonged to the colonists and was represented by Sepulveda; it

demanded a free hand in the exploitation of Spanish territories and its

people as the colonists saw fit. The other was represented by Las Casas,

who advocated a more benevolent and systematic imperial exploitation

while positioning the crown as the overriding regulator of the exploitation

of the colonies and their people in a rational and productive manner. (133)

If Castro’s assessment is correct, one could say that what took place at Valladolid was similar to the “good cop bad cop” method used by law enforcement during the interrogation of a suspect. However, it is doubtful that Las Casas saw his efforts as only a different approach to reach the same goal as Sepulveda, who possessed a much different mindset. Still, Castro makes a valid point in declaring the Crown as the real winner of the debate and by affirming that Las Casas’ real accomplishment was in legitimizing the Spanish monarchy’s colonial authority (133).

It should be clear at this point that the debate in Valladolid was a unique moment in history, and since Las Casas advocated for Indian rights, it would appear to some that he had become the founder of a movement which sought justice for the Indians. The perception of Las Casas as the first advocate for Indian rights is challenged by historian

Venancio D. Carro who, in The Spanish Theological-Juridical Renaissance, argues that those familiar with the writings and the life of Las Casas know that he was not the pioneer of the movement which spoke against the mistreatment of the Indians (Friede and

Keen 247). Carro also expresses his belief that Casas should be credited for “having had the courage to renounce material interests and embrace the justice and truth espoused by the first Dominican missionaries, and to have defended these principles for a half-century with incomparable constancy” (Friede and Keen 248). Although Carro is correct in that

Las Casas was not the first to speak out on behalf of the Indians, there is no denying that he did more for Indian’s rights than any of the actual founders of this cause.

The passionate defense that Las Casas mounted in Valladolid for Indian’s rights served as proof for many that Las Casas was against any form of aggressive behavior on the part of a Christian nation. However, some historians argue that Las Casas did not oppose war in all cases. A perfect example of this position is provided by Dr. Angel

Losada who, in The Controversy between Sepulveda and Las Casas in the Junta of

Valladolid, argues that “Las Casas was in no sense a pacifist,” since the friar did consider some wars to be just, especially those against Muslims and even Christians who had renounced the Catholic Church (Friede and Keen 283). But Losada does not seek to portray Las Casas as a lover of war and points out that Las Casas was concerned with the protection of all innocent persons caught in the middle of a just war. According to

Losada, innocent persons would include women, children, religious leaders, and farm workers (Friede and Keen 283). Consequently, although a war could be just, Las Casas opposed the mistreatment of those who posed no threat to Christianity.

Interestingly, Losada highlights that while Sepulveda’s arguments were based heavily on Aristotle’s views Las Casas based his on the commandments of Jesus Christ

(Friede and Keen 285). Losada also reminds the reader that the great difference between

Las Casas and his rival was that Sepulveda believed the Indians to be “in a state of improvable backwardness” whereas Las Casas, in some respects, saw the Indians as being more advanced than the Spaniards (Friede and Keen 287).

There is no doubt that Las Casas had the better arguments in the debate. While it is understandable that some historians do not believe Las Casas won the debate since the

Indians were never given equality, it would be misleading to accuse the friar of being

nothing more than some agent of the Spanish Empire. Las Casas loved Spain, but he did not let this affection get in the way of his convictions. If Christianity was the best Spain could offer, Las Casas felt the Indians were both capable and worthy of receiving the faith through peaceful means.

CHAPTER THREE

LAS CASAS AND THE INDIANS

God made all the peoples of this area, many and varied as they are, as open and as innocent as can be imagined. The simplest people in the world-unassuming, long-suffering, unassertive, and submissive- they are without malice or guile… Bartolome De Las Casas

Las Casas’ work on behalf of the Indians is the aspect of his life most discussed by historians. While most agree that Las Casas’ advocacy for the Indians was the result of a conversion experience after reading a biblical passage, some do not believe he underwent a genuine change of heart. On the contrary, these historians argue that his advocacy for the Indians was based on other motives. But Las Casas’ change was most likely real; in fact, his decision to renounce the privileges he enjoyed as an encomendero is sufficient evidence. Nevertheless, there is ample room for debate when discussing the effectiveness of Las Casas’ efforts in obtaining justice for the Indians, as historians hold divergent views on the outcome of his efforts and what he truly represents in the fight for

Indian rights.

It is no exaggeration to say that the greatest praise for Las Casas categorizes him as a prophet who fervently fought for Indian freedom. Historians who hold this view argue that he was the 16th century equivalent of the biblical prophets, including the

Hebrew leader Moses who confronted Pharaoh in demanding that the children of Israel be set free. The idea that Las Casas was a modern biblical prophet is obviously an

exaggeration. While there are some similarities between Las Casas and Moses, the truth is that Las Casas did not have a walking staff with supernatural powers, nor did he deal with a closed-minded Egyptian ruler. Instead, Las Casas relied solely on pen and paper in challenging the Spanish monarchy which actually considered his views regarding

Indian mistreatment. We must keep in mind that many of the biblical prophets were killed, imprisoned, fled for safety and, in the case of one prophet, thrown into a lion’s den. Such was not the case with Las Casas, as the worst he experienced were threats from the secular lords of the land.

What it is extremely unique about Las Casas is that even when viewed as a prophet the assessments of him vary. For example, in Journey to the Headwaters:

Bartolome De Las Casas in a Comparative Context (2009), David Orique portrays Las

Casas as a prophet who believed in converting the Indians, but only through peaceful means (11). Orique also depicts Las Casas as one who attempted to do more than simply defend fundamental Indian rights. Specifically, Orique contends that Las Casas also defended Indian rights of religious freedom as well as their access to the Christian religion (23).

To highlight the importance of Las Casas’ role in the cause for justice, Orique compares him to two other notable and contemporary Church figures: Juan Vasco De

Quiroga and Toribio de Benavente Motolinia. Orique argues that, while Quiroga and

Motolinia recognized partial rights for the Indians, it was Las Casas who was fully committed to securing the religious, cultural, personal, and collective rights of indigenous peoples, and that he continued to advocate for the rights of the natives to their land and

sovereignty (23). It is clear that in Orique’s view Las Casas set a much higher standard than other Church leaders of the Americas in his time.

Similarly, as stated in Chapter One, Vickery also categorizes Las Casas as a prophet. However, Vickery’s view is somewhat different in that he believes Las

Casas qualifies as a prophet from both the secular and theological perspectives. He makes his case by explaining that the definition of a secular prophet is “one who proclaims or speaks for another” (Vickery 78). Thus, Las Casas is placed in the same category as the Classical Greek prophets Teiresias and Calchas, or oracles, with the

“ability to articulate and clarify concerns of the day in such a way that all could comprehend them” (Vickery 79). Clearly, Vickery feels it necessary to prove that Las

Casas should be respected as a leader by those who not only hold Judeo-Christian beliefs but essentially any belief.

In addition, Vickery describes Las Casas as one whose primary purpose in defending the Indians was to liberate and save them from being killed by Spaniards (80).

It should be noted that “liberty” in Christianity does not necessarily mean the end of physical enslavement, but also refers to being liberated from the spiritual chains of sin.

Since Las Casas is portrayed by Vickery as being both a secular and Christian prophet, we can assume that the “liberty” Las Casas sought for the Indians was both physical and spiritual in nature.

Vickery further portrays Las Casas as a prophet who was humble and more concerned for the spiritual destiny of the Indians than for his own well-being (94). While it is clear that Vickery views Las Casas as passionate in his quest for the Indians, he also

believes that the friar was equally concerned for the souls of the Spaniards partaking in crimes against the natives (100). If this is the case, then Vickery reveals that Las Casas was similar to the Apostle Paul, who cared not only for the spiritual well being of the

Jews, but also went to extreme measures to preach the gospel to Gentiles.

Furthermore, it is difficult to comprehend how someone who spent so much of his life devoted to the cause of a certain group would not have learned to speak native languages. Vickery notes that Las Casas appears to be guilty of this; however, this accusation does not diminish Vickery’s favorable view of the friar. In fact, he defends

Las Casas’ inability to speak the Indian’s languages because the friar knew he would have more influence on royal policy if he remained in Spain than spending precious time among the Indians (Vickery 118). Although Vickery is right, Las Casas’ minimal

interaction with the Indians has provided his critics opportunity to speculate as to why he didn’t spend much time among them.

Before moving on to other historians’ views it must be noted here that Vickery’s view of Las Casas is clearly biased and perhaps expected from one who works for a

Christian university. However, Vickery’s association with Oral Roberts University is not the best evidence that his view is one sided, as he tells us that Las Casas’ work for the oppressed was unmatched and that he “served as an example for all who seek to reconcile humanity with God” (157). This view may easily be interpreted as blasphemous to some

Christians, as it elevates the friar’s role as a mediator to one usually accredited to Jesus

Christ.

In Las Casas on the Conquest of America, historian Manuel Martinez, doesn’t

assign a religious title to Las Casas, but does believe that he had been predestined to live a life devoted to defending the Indians (Friede and Keen 310). Martinez favorably describes Las Casas as a brave and courageous man for the manner in which he denounced crimes committed against Native Americans (Friede and Keen 346). But

Martinez does not merely portray Las Casas as fearless; he also relates that Las Casas was an extremely compassionate person. As explained by Martinez:

had Las Casas been a thinker who was dedicated to only the theoretical

study of the problems of the Indies, his work and his personality would

not have had the grandeur that came from his innate, profound

compassion for the sufferings of others and from the zeal and vigilance he

displayed throughout his life in seeking to relieve those sufferings. (Friede

and Keen 347)

It is quite clear that in Martinez’s view Las Casas was more than just a politician or activist who used the Indian’s suffering as a platform to advance his personal goals.

Similarly, Lous Antony Dutto views Las Casas as a very compassionate man, but one who also was somewhat powerless. In The Life of Bartolome De Las Casas and the

First Leaves of Ecclesiastical History (1902), Dutto describes Las Casas as the “poor priest” who wept and threatened the authorities as Indians were being sold in his presence

(57). He also claims that Las Casas “never took pen in hand to write without saying something in favor of the Indians” (82). While this is certainly an exaggeration, it nonetheless reveals his belief that there was no higher cause for Las Casas than that of obtaining justice for the Indians.

Aside from portraying Las Casas as extremely compassionate, Dutto also depicts him as one who remained steadfast in fighting for the Indians, despite receiving numerous threats and insults (84). According to Dutto, although Las Casas did not speak in public on the subject of slavery, privately he continually communicated to his church flock his views regarding the treatment of Indians (86). In describing Las Casas’ last years, Dutto states that he was “constantly on the go to wherever the interests of his

Indians required his presence” (102). Clearly, this illustrates Las Casas’ genuine concern and involvement with the Indians. Dutto concludes by offering a defensive view when he states that if “Las Casas did not succeed during his lifetime in setting free all of his beloved Indians, he at least lived long enough to witness most of them enjoying as large a degree of prosperity and legal rights as the sums mentioned indicated” (110). Las Casas, at least in Dutto’s view, saw that his work was not conducted in vain.

A much more defensive view of Las Casas is presented by historian C. Richard

Arena. In Bartolme De Las Casas: An Early American Agrarian Reformer (1966), Arena challenges any suggestion that Las Casas became discouraged after seeing his reform project for the Indians fail. In particular, Arena points out that Las Casas remained active in the cause for social justice, concentrating on peaceful methods to convert the Indians to Christianity (126). While Arena acknowledges that Las Casas was not a revolutionary, interestingly enough he describes him as one who “completely immersed himself in the muddy-and dangerous-waters of practical politics giving as much as he took to gain his social reforms in sixteenth century Spanish America” (127). This remarkable description clearly demonstrates that Arena views Las Casas as an astute and effective politician.

That said, Arena considers Las Casas as a reformer from within and claims that during his lifetime Las Casas never broke from the alliance formed by the Crown and

Church that characterized colonial Spanish society (Arena 128). For this reason, Arena believes that Las Casas should be categorized separately from later agrarian reformers, such as the Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, or the Russian Communist leader,

Vladimir Lenin, who were both outside the religious or political structures they wanted to change. He further states that Las Casas more resembled Thomas Jefferson, who sought to advance his land reform policies from within (131). While true that both Las Casas and Jefferson were both members of an establishment they sought to reform, Arena’s comparison is somewhat misleading, as Jefferson’s efforts would benefit those who, like him, were white. Las Casas, on the other hand, sought what was in the best interest for both the Indians and Spaniards.

Arena also believes that Las Casas was unable to overcome some of the challenges he faced because his message of Indian justice was being delivered to the

“wrong people at the wrong time and place in history” (131). Such a view is not an excuse, but rather a correct assessment of why Las Casas’ views were not fully implemented. We must keep in mind that Las Casas’ message was countercultural; as even some in the Church were unconvinced that abolishing the encomienda system was in the best interest for the Spanish monarchy and Catholicism.

Additionally, Las Casas received praise from some historians as not necessarily a saint or spokesman for God. A perfect example is Jose Juan Arrom who, in Bartolome de

Las Casas: Iniciador de la Narrativa Protesta (1982), acknowledges that Las Casas was

not completely honest about the events of the Conquest; however, he justifies the friar’s exaggerations by explaining that such manipulation was done with the intention of defending Indian dignity. Thus, despite this deception, Arrom describes Las Casas as being “the best and most noble part of the Spanish conscience” (39). While there should be no question about Las Casas’ level of commitment to the cause of the Indians, it is difficult to accept that anyone who relies on exaggerations or other types of manipulation to accomplish their goal, even when the intention is to alleviate the suffering of others, should be honored in the way Arrom describes Las Casas.

A topic of further discussion among historians is Las Casas’ personal observations concerning the Indians. Mexican scholar Teresa Silva Tena is among those who admire Las Casas for his interpretation of Aztec human sacrifice, and points out that

“he was the only one in his time who had the imagination to understand this much discussed rite from the Indian point of view” (Hanke 142). Clayton also holds this view of Las Casas and comments that:

This Euro-centric view tinged with racism was quite common to all

European peoples of the sixteenth century—not only the Spanish and

Portuguese, but also the English, French, and Dutch, as the century wore

on and they too extend their claims to the New world. What stands out is

Las Casas’ challenge to this view, seeing the world more and from the

other side that of the native American peoples. (132)

While this view presents Las Casas as being open-minded, it does not acknowledge that he was a prophet. Assuming that prophets only relay messages from the perspective of a

deity, Las Casas could not be categorized as a biblical prophet since he attempted to view the biblically forbidden practice of human sacrifice from the perspective of non-

Christian peoples.

Historian Juan Friede puts forth a much different and significantly negative view of Las Casas. While criticizing Las Casas’ image, Friede describes him as a “religious zealot who used ecclesiastical penalties as a key weapon against those who were mistreating the Indians” (Friede and Keen 186). But in doing so, Las Casas did not abuse his power; instead, he enforced what he felt was his obligation as a priest. However, such weapons are ineffective against those who have a strong desire to make or save money and would do whatever it takes to accomplish this end, even if it means selling or buying another human.

While other historians believe that Las Casas continued his fight for the Indians, even late in life, Friede claims that Las Casas was inactive and as a result posed no threat to those he had fervently fought against (197). Such a portrayal of Las Casas leads one to believe that Las Casas’ work on behalf of the Indians was truly a work done in vain, but such a perception would be inaccurate, as Las Casas at the very minimum was successful in bringing some relief to the Indians during his time.

An even more negative view of Las Casas is expounded by Castro, who argues

that, “there is little mention made of the fact that his praxis seldom resulted in improving the lives of the natives, and often his main accomplishment was to keep himself in the political and social limelight” (5). Even if it were true that Las Casas’ efforts did not bring significant change for the natives, it would be wrong to assume that having a place

in the political world was among the friar’s priorities when the friar devoted most of his adult life for the natives, despite the cost.

Castro further claims that Las Casas never worked directly with the Indians to convert them from “passive objects into active subjects responsible for transforming their own fate” (5). In Castro’s view, Las Casas would only have made an impact on the lives of the Indians if he had lived among them rather than having focused his efforts for their cause while in Spain. This complaint against Las Casas seems to be unfair in that what

Castro expects of him was not realistic for one man to accomplish. Castro, as well as any other historian assessing Las Casas, should keep in mind that the friar’s primary objective was to bring justice for the Indians, if the method he employed wasn’t the best, it does not diminish his level of devotion for the natives.

Castro’s views, the complete opposite of Vickery’s, appear to take issue only with what he perceives as Las Casas’ failures in obtaining justice for the Indians. However,

Castro’s real problem with Las Casas is his association with Spain and the Catholic

Church. As previously mentioned, Castro views Las Casas as one who failed to sense the irony of proselytizing amongst people who practiced a distinctive organized religion.

Therefore, it is highly unlikely for someone like Castro to assess Las Casas favorably when they view the very presence of the Spaniards and the Catholic Church representatives as a severe threat to the Indians.

Like Castro, Crisian Roa De La Carrera, also holds a negative view of Las Casas.

In El “indio” como categoria antropologica en la Apologetica Historia Sumaria de Fray

Bartolome de las Casas (2010), La Carrera echoes Castro’s view that Las Casas worked

for a religious empire that sought to subdue the Indians but through a more peaceful manner (90). La Carrera also explains that, despite Las Casas’ views on the issues of colonization, slavery, and the encomienda system, he fulfilled a role for a system which categorized the Indians in a way that benefited the imperial administrators (91).

Therefore, La Carrera does not see Las Casas one who acted alone in his quest to improve the lives of the Indians and charges him with being “more of a rigorous intellectual at the service of the Spanish Crown, than he was an idealist defender of the

Indians” (La Carrera 91).

While it is understandable that Castro and La Carrera associate Las Casas with an empire whose priorities were God, gold, and glory, their assessments are extremely unfair. Las Casas did not only care for the Indians because he saw them as potential

Christians, he cared because they were human beings. It is worth mentioning that Las

Casas’ view that the Indians were human beings was in accordance with the official position of the Church established in 1537 by Pope Paul III; the Crown had gone as far as abolishing slavery in 1530 but continued to view itself as the guardian of the natives.

Secondly, the charge that Las Casas was just another agent of the Spanish Empire is a clear revelation that neither Castro nor La Carrera can accept that it is possible for an individual to bring change while still being a representative of a broken system. This of course is not true, as there are plenty of examples throughout history in which individuals reformed systems or institutions from within.

Las Casas did not drastically change any system or institution, but the suffering of many natives was relieved because of him. His decision to give up the privileges he was

initially given as an encomendero, his views on peaceful conversion, and his arguments for letting natives control their land, are sufficient proof that Las Casas saw the Indians as humans who deserved better treatment. But this does not mean Las Casas was an advocate for equal rights. He may very well have seen the Indian as an equal, but he did not significantly challenge Spain’s view that the natives were wards of the Crown who needed Christianity. It is one thing to fight against slavery but a completely different thing to be an advocate for equality. Still, Las Casas is an example of how one person can resist the dominant culture of their time and begin a debate on justice which can lead to equality.

CHAPTER FOUR

LAS CASAS AND SLAVERY

The clerigo Casas soon repented of the advice he had given, judging he had been guilty of carelessness, for as he later saw and ascertained that the slavery of blacks was as unjust as that of the Indians… Bartolome De Las Casas

The enslavement of Indians was only one of many consequences brought about by the Spanish conquest. It was only a matter of time before casualties of war, Old World diseases, and extreme working conditions caused a decline in the Indian population. To

Spaniards, a shortage of Indians represented a labor deficit which they believed could be resolved with African slavery (Landers 85). Once the replacement slaves arrived they were rapidly absorbed into various industries. Many of these slaves were used in gold, silver, and copper mines; others were utilized in different areas of agriculture, such as cattle and sheep ranching and the planting of sugar cane and cacao (Landers 86).

Through the work Las Casas performed for the Indians, he not only earned respect among the natives but, as demonstrated in this study, he also has received praise from many historians. Despite this, his presumed role in the importation of black slaves to the

New World is one that has also resulted in some historians embracing a negative view of the friar. Las Casas did not introduce African slavery to the New World, but he did believe it to be a solution at one point in his life. Speaking in the third person, Las Casas comments:

Before sugar mills were invented, some settlers, who had some wealth

they had gotten from the sweat and blood of the Indians, wanted a license

to buy Black slaves back in Castile. The settlers saw they were killing off

the Indians. But they still had some. So they promised the cleric

Bartolome de las Casas that if he succeeded in getting them the license to

import a dozen Blacks to the island, they would allow the Indians they

held to be set free. With this promise in mind, the cleric Las Casas got the

king to allow the Spaniards of the islands to bring in some Black slaves

from Castile so the Indians could then be set free. (Sullivan 160)

It is impossible to ascertain Las Casas’ true intentions when he made this recommendation to the king. Nevertheless, the friar’s decision to express his support for this option has provided historians not only with an opportunity to formulate interpretations on the recommendation itself, but also to reveal Las Casas as a person.

Similar to any other aspect of Las Casas’ life mentioned earlier, historians’ views of Las

Casas and his association with slavery in the New World range from support to intense criticism.

A good example of an exceedingly negative view of Las Casas in his presumed role in the importation of black slavery is one which regards him as hypocritical. In particular, Castro describes this view perfectly when he points out that while Las Casas had strongly urged for the end of Indian slavery, he also advocated “the use of black slaves imported from Africa as a part of a general scheme to stimulate Spanish migration to the colonies and to avoid the massive death of indigenous people from overwork and neglect” (Castro 37). This accusation involves more than just the irony of replacing

slaves with other slaves; it also makes Las Casas appear to be responsible for a large- scale importation of black slaves, more than the few black slaves he had earlier suggested.

Historians who see Las Casas as hypocritical are likely to question his integrity and honesty. Castro, for example, argues that Las Casas’ recommendation to replace the

Indians with black slaves reveals that he was nothing more than a religious leader whose career as a reformer included going to extraordinary lengths to attain his objectives (74).

It must be mentioned that Las Casas’ exaggerations are no surprise to historians, for even those who speak highly of the friar, acknowledge that he is guilty of stretching the truth.

The difference, however, is that historians who favor Las Casas argue that the friar lied with good intentions in mind. Although Las Casas’ exaggerations can be seen as an act of love by historians who support him, it is clear that his intentional distortion of facts regarding the treatment of the Indians by the Spanish colonizers has damaged his credibility in the eyes of Castro and other historians.

A somewhat negative view of Las Casas short of demonizing him associates his conversion experience with the importation of African slaves. Although conversion experiences are generally viewed positively, some historians, such as Wynter, argue that the importation of black slaves to the New World is a result of Las Casas’ “conversion- inspired mission to secure the abolition of all forms of Indians forced labor” (Wynter 25).

Despite making a connection between Las Casas’ conversion and black slavery in the

Americas, Wynter does not portray him as an evil person nor does she accuse him of seeing black people as inferior. Instead, the importation of black slaves is presented

more as an unintended consequence, and Wynter reminds us that once Las Casas realized that black slaves were obtained through unjust methods, he genuinely repented of his proposal (26).

Before discussing other historians’ views of Las Casas and his controversial proposal, the friar’s conversion experience and its connection with slavery must be addressed. It is important to keep in mind that while conversions normally result in positive change, there are instances in which those who convert to a different faith may become radical in the quest to change society. The problem with radicals who want to change the views of others is that their perception of other important things in life becomes diminished. Las Casas is no exception, as his desperation to end Indian suffering prevented him from seeing the evil in proposing to Charles V the importation of black slaves.

While no one defends Las Casas’ promotion of black slavery in the Americas, some defend his recommendation to the king. It must be noted here that historians who defend Las Casas on this matter, and on different grounds, do not view slavery as an acceptable practice, but instead, take into consideration different factors such as location and the time in which these events took place.

Carro is among those who defend Las Casas’ recommendation on the basis of the historical circumstances and justifies the friar’s approach to the issue of slavery by claiming that, although the Church had always condemned slavery, it simply could not change customs so deeply rooted at the time (Friede and Keen 241). While this may appear as a questionable excuse, Carro’s claim is accurate. Centuries of fighting the

Muslim- controlled areas in the Iberian Peninsula, and the ongoing Protestant

Reformation initiated by Martin Luther, are two major reasons why the 16th century

Christian mindset was based on religious conflict.

Carro also explains that medieval theologians would not condemn slavery in the case of those who were classified as prisoners of war, since in such cases the alternative to slavery was death (Friede and Keen 241). This view portrays the Church and its representatives, not as a religious institution that promoted or encouraged the cruel practice of slavery, but rather as one that viewed slavery as the only way to keep prisoners of war alive. If true, this may be an example of a moment in Church history when the leadership compromised on an issue of morality. Interestingly, Carro not only absolves the Church and its lack of true participation against black slavery, but also claims that Spain did not play a role in the trafficking of slaves (Friede and Keen 241).

However, such arguments are intentionally misleading and it is clear that Carro seeks to make the Church and Spain appear guiltless in the enslavement of thousands of black people in the New World.

Among the historians who are convinced that Las Casas played a significant role in African slavery, some argue that he in no way discriminated against black Africans on the basis of color or race. To defend Las Casas’ views as non-discriminatory, historians point to recommendations Las Casas gave when he called for the importation of white slaves (Friede and Keen 505), portraying Las Casas as being unprejudiced, not because he was anti-slavery, (because it does acknowledge his recommendation to import slaves), but because he did not make a distinction between white and black slaves. Provided this

is the case, it can be argued that Las Casas’ recommendation to replace Indian slaves with black slaves was not based on a personal belief that they were inferior to whites.

While some historians blame Las Casas for recommending the importation of black slaves, others argue that he did not play a significant role in introducing African slavery. To support their argument, these scholars point out that black slaves were already present in the Indies long before Las Casas made his controversial recommendation to the Crown (Dutto 34). However, what must be understood is that, even if Las Casas is not responsible for the introduction of black slavery to the New

World, the seriousness of his decision to promote the use of black slaves in place of the natives should not be minimized.

Unlike Castro and other historians who feel that Las Casas was hypocritical for fighting slavery while simultaneously advocating for it, historians such as Dutto do not perceive Las Casas as illogical. To defend this view, they point out that the Indians were incapable of meeting the labor’s physical demands while Africans were known to be productive under harsh working conditions (Dutto 35). Given their seeming endurance, these historians deem Las Casas as someone who felt that African slaves would not suffer as much as Indian slaves.

Similarly, Vickery also believes that Las Casas should not be held responsible for

the emergence of black slavery in the New World; in fact, he points out that during the period that Las Casas made his recommendation others also called for the importation of black slaves (85). Once again, should this hold true, it does not minimize the “sin” Las

Casas committed in providing the king with such recommendation, even if he later

regretted his comments.

Morever, historians who defend Las Casas on various grounds all agree that, after having studied the issue of slavery in depth, the friar changed how he viewed the enslavement of black people. This is not to say that Las Casas changed his views on slavery, because he did agree with slavery as a result of just war, but the friar came to realize that enslavement of black people in the Americas was not the result of just war.

If Las Casas is still considered guilty due to his recommendation, despite his change of heart over this matter, historians such as Vickery highlight the fact that Las Casas later defended the rights of black slaves with the same fervor in which he defended the rights of the Indians (89). A more interesting view on Las Casas and the issue of slavery is one that implies that what Las Casas had in mind in his recommendation was not an evil form of slavery. Instead, it is argued by some historians that what the friar had in mind was something much closer to indentured servitude. While there is a significant difference between an indentured servant and a slave, nevertheless the indentured servant is not free from mistreatment.

In The Role Of Las Casas in the Emergence of Negro Slavery in the New World

(1966), Robert L. Brady admits that Las Casas condoned slavery, but states that it was one that was both humane and terminable (46). Interestingly, Brady explains that the system Las Casas recommended was already in place in Spain, one in which “Negroes earned their freedom, occasionally married outside of their race and in some instances became the heirs of masters who adopted them” (46). Of course, this sounds more like an opportunity for blacks to move up in Spanish society than a system which demoralized

humans. Regardless of the exact form of slavery Las Casas suggested, it is clear that

Brady feels the friar supported a system which was far more humane than the one established in the New World.

Like Brady, Clayton also believes that Las Casas did not recommend a harsh form of slavery. To defend this view, he explains that Las Casas was very conscious of

African slaves throughout his childhood. According to Clayton, slaves represented about

10 percent of the population and were “visible and accepted as a part of the local scene, working in urban industries, going to church, forming part of the general population, not particularly deprived, oppressed, or stripped of much of their humanity as would occur in the plantations of the Americas by the eighteenth century” (Clayton 137). Clayton also explains that slavery was an accepted form of servitude during the sixteenth century, and that it was unquestioned by theologians and philosophers until Las Casas began to speak out against it.

An interesting defense of Las Casas is also staged by M. Regina. In Las Casas: A

Philopsophy of History (1966), Regina tells us that Las Casas was “quick to be humble when he recognized his errors,” which includes his recommendation to use black slaves as a replacement for the Indians (85). Like other historians, Regina reminds us that Las

Casas immediately regretted his decision and spoke out against black slavery.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE IMAGE OF LAS CASAS

In a perfect world, an individual would be judged by the standard set by Martin

Luther King Jr. at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963; that is, by the content of a person’s character. Here, of course, King addressed the issue of racial segregation and discrimination in the United States; however, it makes sense to use the same criteria when assessing any notable historical figure. Unfortunately, some historians who hold a negative view of Las Casas base their assessments solely on the friar’s association with the Catholic Church, or on the exaggerations found in his written works discussing the

Spaniard’s treatment of the Indians.

In 1914, Spanish crown official, Julian Juderias, coined the term Black Legend to describe Northern Europe’s long-held negative view of Spain. According to Juderias,

“the outside world had long viewed Spain through prisms that distorted the Spanish reality, and he rebuked Las Casas for having contributed to this distorted vision of Spain”

(Friede and Keen 47). This accusation is serious as it makes Las Casas a traitor. But this charge against the friar is completely false. Even Castro, clearly one of Las Casas’ fiercest critics, states that the friar “never revealed a lack of patriotism, disloyalty, or disaffection for his country” (172). Castro is right, Las Casas did not hate his country, nor did he intentionally seek to hurt Spain’s reputation, in fact, he loved his countrymen enough that he warned them about the coming consequences if they continued to mistreat the Indians.

Spanish professor J. Perez de Barradas also provides a harsh evaluation of Las

Casas. In Los Mestizos de America (1948), Barradas accuses Las Casas of being a faux historian who had bad intentions when he wrote about the destruction of the Indies (85).

But Barradas does more than just accuse Las Casas of distorting what took place in the

Indies; he also accuses him of advocating for Indian rights only to obtain the same level of honor as St. Paul among the natives (161).

Barradas goes on to claim that Las Casas was more interested in enjoying the cost free life of staying at convents more than the work of evangelizing (162). As to his written works, Barradas claims that Las Casas’ only purpose was to make the Indians look good and the Spaniards look bad (163). Finally, Barradas says that Las Casas had mental issues and that it is evident in how he held such a passion for people he didn’t even know (166). Barradas also claims that the friar demonstrated mental issues, evident in how he wrote of the Spaniards as having nothing else to do but torture the Indians

(176).

However, such accusations are unfair; Friede addresses them by raising the question:

Can Las Casas be charged with guilt because his work was used by

Spain’s enemies? Can one make a sincere, disinterested author, the

representative of a movement which enjoyed the broadest sympathy in the

highest official circles of Spain and even on the part of Charles V himself,

responsible for the later misuse of his literary works for political end? The

answer is an emphatic no. (Friede and Keen 525)

Friede’s defense of Las Casas is convincing, whereas those who blame him do so in a

desperate attempt to absolve Spain of its wrong doings.

Juan Comas also takes issue with Perez de Barradas and other historians who

“seek to blacken the name of the illustrious Dominican with the evident design of detracting from-or even annihilating-the value of his life-long campaign in favor of improving the living conditions of the American Indians” (Friede and Keen 488). Comas also explain that Las Casas’ exaggerations were in response to the exaggerations of the colonizers who described the Indians as inferior (Friede and Keen 502).

Historian Ramon Menendez Pidal also attacks Las Casas and claims the friar had a personality disorder. In 1963 during a lecture at Oxford Pidal called Las Casas “a typical paranoiac with dreams of grandeur (Friede and Keen 520). Menendez Pidal also wrote that “Las Casas never considered that he continually defamed, with great publicity, all Spain, all conquistadors, all encomenderos, all administrators, attributing to them evil deeds whose publication, even if true, constitute defamation” (Friede and Keen 524).

These accusations against the friar are challenged by multiple historians who claim

Menendez Pidal did not research the life of Las Casas properly and was blinded by the belief that Las Casas intentionally made Spain appear evil.

In reviewing historians’ views on Las Casas, there is no indication that there is a growing trend of hostility towards the friar. The oldest source cited in this thesis, published in 1902, portrays Las Casas as a very compassionate man. The following sources discussed were published during the 1960’s and 1970’s when a major cultural revolution took place in the West. Interestingly, during these decades when racism was challenged with great intensity, these historians wrote favorably of Las Casas’ work on

behalf of the Indians but, more interestingly, they defended his recommendation to import black slaves. Only one source provided an unfavorable portrayal of Las Casas in stating that he lacked any real power to stop the Spaniards from committing horrible acts against the Indians.

Sources gathered from the last two decades of the 20th century are somewhat different from those of previous decades, in that some historians acknowledge Las Casas’ exaggerations and his role in black slavery. Only one source from this period claims it was the sugar industry and not Las Casas that was responsible for the enslavement of black people. However, every source from these decades is favorable to Las Casas’ work among the Indians.

The sources used in this research from the first decade of the current millennium are much different from previous studies. For example, in this time frame we find

Castro’s and Orique’s accusations that Las Casas was an agent of the very empire that terrorized the Indians. However, it must be understood that these sources in no way prove that historians will become increasingly hostile towards Las Casas, as Vickery’s radical claim that Las Casas was a prophet like those found in the Bible was made during this same time frame.

Whereas some sources portray Las Casas in an extremely negative manner, others counter with exaggerations that attempt to canonize him. This trend will most likely continue. Therefore, Las Casas’ lifelong advocacy for Indian’s rights is in no danger of being overshadowed by the criticism the Catholic Church will continue to receive for its role in the colonization of the Americas. Instead, we can expect historians

to continue this debate, with some being extremely defensive of the friar, and others seeking to demonize him.

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION

Las Casas will continue to be among the most controversial figures of Latin

American history, giving historians much to discuss. The transition from slave owner to

Dominican friar and defender of Indian’s rights distinguishes Las Casas as a unique historical figure. His fight for the liberation of the Indians, while suggesting the enslavement of Africans, only adds to the controversy of Las Casas the individual and his true objectives. But although some of Las Casas’ actions were contradictory, this is precisely what one should expect from any individual whose views on social and moral issues are still evolving.

The Valladolid debate was not only a major event in Las Casas’ life but also a key moment in the history of Latin America. Therefore, one can expect historians to continue debating this topic, with some declaring Las Casas the winner, and others viewing him as the loser. Despite historian’s views on who triumphed in the debate, the significance of what happened in Valladolid cannot be diminished and will continue to stand as the first time that the nature of American Indians was discussed with both government and religious authorities involved. Las Casas was not the first to disapprove of Indian slavery, but he was the first to take the discussion to a higher pulpit.

Historians’ views on Las Casas and his controversial commitment to the Indians will always vary, depending on historian’s values the most and what they feel Las Casas’ role was or should have been with regards to the Indians. However, most historians’ views on Las Casas and the cause of justice for Indians will continue to be favorable. It

is believed here that it is unjustifiable to castigate someone who gave up being a slave owner and spent much of his life defending the dignity of a people during a time when his views were completely opposed to dominant cultural beliefs. As demonstrated in this study, Las Casas’ battle over the nature of the Indians was waged not just with secular powers, but also among high ranking clergy.

Despite the attempts to make Las Casas appear innocent on the issue of black slavery in the New World, some historians will continue to charge him with having a role in this horrible practice; but these scholars do not take into consideration factors such as culture, time, and place in which Las Casas suggested that black slaves replace the

Indians. Instead, they assess Las Casas based on social values commonly accepted in modern times. Obviously, that is unfair to the friar’s reputation. Las Casas, along with other influential historical figures, should be judged in accordance to the time and place in which they lived. On the contrary, many who supported the abolition of slavery in the

U.S. would be categorized as "racists" and “bigots” by today’s standards if they did not support interracial marriages. In the end, Las Casas acknowledged that black slavery was just as evil as the enslavement of Indians, and he made it clear he regretted his recommendation to the king of using black slaves to replace the Indian slaves. In doing so, he challenged the prevailing mores of his time.

Las Casas was a Dominican friar and not a prophet, an advocate for Indians, but not a saint. As a human, Las Casas was subject to committing errors such as making a regrettable recommendation in a desperate attempt to bring relief to the Indians. Still, this does not change the fact that Las Casas was a compassionate man who, after a

genuine conversion experience, devoted the rest of his life to obtain justice for the

Indians.

As a result of his decision to seek justice for Indians and later African slaves, Las

Casas confronted the powerful forces of imperial wealth and greed. In doing so, he faced the opposition with the same bravery that Moses confronted Pharaoh, and with the same

passion Martin Luther King Jr. spoke against racial segregation and discrimination.

WORKS CITED

Arena, C. Richard. “Bartolome De Las Casas: An Early American Agrarian Reformer.”

Revista de Historia de America, no. 61/62, 1966, pp. 121-131. JSTOR, http://0-

www.jstor.org.torofind.csudh.edu/stable/41307337.

Arrom, Jose Juan. “Bartolome de Las Casas: Iniciador de la Narrativa Protesta.” Revista

De Critica Literaria Latinoamericana, vol.8, no.16, 1982, pp. 27-39. JSTOR,

http://0-www.jstor.org.torofind.csudh.edu/stable/4530065.

Assadourian, Carlos Sempat. “Fray Bartolome de Las Casas Obispo: La Naturaleza

Miserable de las Naciones Indianas y el Derecho de la Iglesia. Un escrito de

1545.” Historia Mexicana, vol.40, no.3, 1991, pp. 387-451. JSTOR, http://0-

www.jstor.org.torofind.csudh.edu/stable/25138375.

Barradas, Jose Perez de. Los Mestizos De America. Espasa-Calpe, S.A., 1948.

Brady, Robert L. “The Role of Las Casas in the Emergence of Negro Slavery in the New

World.” Revista de Historia de America, no. 61-62, 1966, pp. 43-55. JSTOR,

http://0-www.jstor.org.torofind.csudh.edu/stable/41307332.

Brunstetter, Daniel R., and Dana Zartner. “Just War Against Barbarians: Revisiting The

Valladolid Debates Between Sepulveda and Las Casas.” Political Studies, vol.59,

no.3, 2011, pp.733-752. EBSCOHOST, http://0- search.ebscohost.com.torofind.

csudh.edu/login.aspx?direct==true&db=aph&AN=65277827&site=ehost-live.

Castro, Daniel. Another Face of Empire: Bartolome De Las Casas, Indigenous Rights,

and Ecclesiastical Imperialism. Duke University Press, 2007.

Clayton, Lawrence A. Bartolome De Las Casas and the Conquest of the Americas.

Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Dutto, Louis Anthony. The Life of Bartolome De Las Casas and the First Leaves of

American Ecclesiastical History. B. Herder, 1902.

Friede, Juan and Benjamin Keen, editors. Bartolome De Las Casas In History: Toward

an Understanding of the Man and His Work. Northern Illinois University

Press, 1971.

Hanke, Lewis. All Mankind Is One: A Study of the Disputation Between Bartolome de

Las Casas and Juan Gines de Sepulveda in 1550 on the Intellectual and Religious

Capacity of the American Indians. Northern Illinois University Press, 1974

Hartigan, Richard Shelly. “Saint Augustine on War and Killing: The Problem of the

Innocent.” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol.27, no.2, 1966, pp. 195-204.

JSTOR, http://0-www.jstor.org.torofind.csudh.edu/stable/2708638.

Landers, Jane. “Africans in the Spanish Colonies.” Historical Archaeology, vol. 31, no.1,

1997, pp. 84-103. JSTOR, http://0-www.jstor.org.torofind.csudh.edu/stable/

25616520.

Las Casas, Bartolome de. In Defense of the Indians. Translated by Stafford Poole,

Northern Illinois University Press, 1992.

Orique, David T. Journey to the Headwaters: Bartolome De Las Casas In A Comparative

Context.” Catholic Historical Review, vol. 95, no.1, 2009, pp. 1-24.

EBSCOHOST, http://0-search.ebscohost.com.torofind.csudh.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=aph&AN=3612650&site=ehost-live.

Regina, M. “The Philosophy of His History.” Revista de Historia de America, no.61-62,

1966, pp.73-87. JSTOR, http://0-www.jstor.org.torofind.csudh.edu/stable/

41307334.

Roa de la Carrera, Cristian. “ El Indio Como Categoria Antropologica en la Apologetica

Historia Sumaria de Fray Bartolome De Las Casas.” Confluencia, vol. 25, no.2,

2010, pp. 81-93. EBSCOHOST, http://0-search.ebscohost.com.torofind.csudh.

edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=50883330&site=ehost-live.

Schwaller, John Frederick. The History of the Catholic Church In Latin America: From

Conquest to Revolution and Beyond. New York University Press, 2011.

Shiels, W. Eugene. King and Church: The Rise and Fall of the Patronato Real. Loyola

University Press, 1961.

Sullivan, Francis Patrick. Indian Freedom: The Cause of Bartolome De Las Casas

1484-1566. Sheet & Ward, 1995.

Vickery, Paul S. Bartolome De Las Casas: Great Prophet of the Americas. Paulist Press,

2006.

Wynter, Sylvia. “New Seville and the Conversion Experience of Bartolome de Las

Casas.” Jamaica Journal, no.17, no.2, 1984, pp. 25-32.

Wynter, Sylvia. “New Seville and the Conversion Experience of Bartolome de Las

Casas.” Jamaica Journal, vol.17, no.3, 1984, pp. 46-55.