Skip to main content

Sepulveda, Democrates Alter

PHIL 202, Modern philosophy, Fall 2026

Assigned: entire textOpen original PDF ↗

1 The Valladolid debate

In 1550, King Charles of Spain assembled a panel of philosophers, lawyers, and theologians to debate a question about whether it should be permitted to forcibly convert indigenous Americans. Las Casas took the ‘no’ side; Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda took the ‘yes’ side. Notice that a few questions are at issue here, but it is specifically the use of violence that elicits disagreement. (For example, Las Casas thinks, like everyone else in this debate, that indigenous Americans are urgently in need of conversion.)

Some further background:

  • In 1493 Pope Alexander IV issues a papal bull, declaring that “the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself,” and he divides that mission in the western hemisphere between Spain and Portugal
    • Note that, not only from 1515 on, with the beginning of the Reformation, but already in the late fifteenth century, ‘Europe’ in general (I’m thinking chiefly of England) does not accept this bull without qualification
  • In 1537 Pope Paul III issues the papal bull, Sublimis Deus, which declares American Indians to be people and receptive to conversion

2 Sublimis Deus (1537)

The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office ‘Go ye and teach all nations.’ He said all, without exception, for all are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith. The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God’s word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith. We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect. By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.

3 The Valladolid debate (cont’d)

  • Queen Isabel in 1501, in theory, emancipated all Indians; in place of enslavement the encomienda system
  • The “Laws of Burgos” of 1512 were the first laws attempting to govern the relation between Spaniards and indigenous Americans. It more or less formalized the encomienda system, described American Indians as “free,” and mandated a Christian education for them.
  • Spain’s “New Laws” of 1542 were intended to curb mistreatment of indigenous Americans, and were incompletely successful to that effect (though they did result in the liberation of many who had been enslaved)

4 Sepulveda

Sepulveda takes the other side of the debate, arguing that American Indians are natural slaves. One other difference between Las Casas and Sepulveda to note is that Sepulveda’s arguments have a secular (rather than theological) footing.

Here, top to bottom, seems to be what’s going on here.

  • p. 1: the question. What is worth noticing about the question is that it isn’t just about enslavement of American Indians; it is about the justice of waging war on them. The basic legal structure Sepulveda is appealing to here finds the justice of enslavement through the justice of war.
    • War itself, note, doesn’t justify enslavement. It does only if the war is ‘just’. This is the basic idea of what’s called ‘just war theory’, a medieval political-theoretical idea
    • One crucial bit of nuance: It is characteristic of the period that Sepulveda doesn’t simply argue: The American Indians are rationally deficient; so they are natural slaves. Rather, he argues: The American Indians’ refusal to be governed by superiors is a just cause of war; etc. This reframes the entire question, notice. It is less about the abstract question whether American Indians are intelligent enough to rule themselves and more about whether they have committed a wrong that would justify coercion and conquest. Sepulveda has in mind in a few places this passage from Aristotle’s Politics I.8:

Warfare is naturally an art of acquisition, since hunting is part of it; it should be used against wild animals and against those human beings who are naturally suited to be ruled but unwilling to submit, since such warfare is naturally just.