Conquest of the Aztec and Enslavement of the Natives

Hernan Cortes spends much of his time focusing on the material wealth of the city of
Tenochtitlan. He spends a short amount of time referencing the scope of the city, but still allows
the reader to understand it is very large, then spends the majority of the time describing the
material wealth possessed by the Aztecs. He goes into the fine craftsmanship possessed by the
Aztecs and how there were no craftsmen the world over that could best their work. Although, he
doesnt say that they cannot match the work, which I believe to mean that he felt as though there
were a pinnacle of artistry which theyd achieved. This, I think, is surprising to him as they
arent Christian and thus should not be able to produce works of that caliber.
Cortes obviously felt that the conquering of the Aztec nation would be highly profitable,
considering the vast amount of time he speaks about their vast amount of wealth. However, to
justify it (morally, not necessarily as an excuse to simply pillage) he calls them barbarians. He is
appalled by their rituals of human sacrifice. So, feeling morally righteous and with the promise
of wealth he set out to take down one of the mightiest empires in the Western hemisphere. To
compound his interests in conquering the Aztecs, he knew that if hed give this impressive city to
the king of Spain that he would be spared for technically not having permission to acquire these
lands. So I would say that he justified the conquest with religion, wealth, and fear. Religion
giving him the moral high ground. Wealth giving him power. Fear of being tried for treason
giving him motivation to obtain something grand for the king. Ultimately, it worked as he is not
known for taking down the Aztecs and then dying, but continuing to govern the newly acquired
territory and Christianizing the natives.
Las Casas blasts the Spanish policies of enslavement of the native populace as being
brutal and inhumane, noting the hardships the natives suffered at the hands of the Spanish. He

mentions how the natives are malnourished and that due to the work they were forced to perform
many died horrific deaths. I think that it may have been guilt in seeing the human suffering that
caused him to make these critiques as he too owned them as slaves, although he did release his
own slaves after his change of heart. Unfortunately, he made the rather poor recommendation of
replacing the natives with slaves from Africa which helped to spur a brutal business which would
see the displacement, mistreatment, and ultimately the deaths of many Africans. Later he would
disavow this and see all forms of slavery as being unacceptable, but that doesnt really excuse the
previous recommendation.
After reading his disapproval of the enslavement of the natives, I do feel like he was
sincere about wanting to abolish it. It helps knowing that he would eventually spend a large
portion of his time fighting slavery. Which went largely unsuccessful save for the creation of a
single law which made it so that the encomienda was no longer hereditary and that natives would
be set free after one generation of ownership, called the New Laws. I think he views the natives
with piety from this point on, both due to their mistreatment and for not knowing God. He
spends a lot of his time during this period, now a member of the Church, converting natives of
South America to Catholicism.
(Abolitionists seem to have existed for as long as the practice of slavery has been around,
and Las Casas was one of them. For that I respect him, even if he inadvertently participated in
spreading the dangerous thought of using Africans as a slave force. Which, I believe was him
trying to find a working compromise for the situation that existed in New Spain and Peru.
Perhaps believing that the owners of these slaves would treat them well considering the expense
of transporting them to the New World. This is just speculation on my part though.)