Gabriela Calderón de Burgos’ Scholarly Development of Paul Schwennesen’s Essay

   

In her response to Paul Schwennesen’s initial essay, Gabriela Calderón de Burgos helpfully writes in support of his theme by expanding the discussion to the politicization and oversimplification of the history of Spain in the Americas. “A more nuanced view” of the  history of the Spanish influence in Latin America reveals a “rich classical tradition” that existed even if it did not “prevail.” She introduces into this forum the contribution of another member of the School of Salamanca, Francisco Suarez, and his principles of the sovereignty of the governed, which at times animated the revolutions for independence in South America.

Calderón de Burgos quotes prominent ethicist Nigel Biggar of the University of Oxford who appropriately notes that Great Britain is also simplistically characterized as unmitigated tyrants. In Britain’s case, the issue must be addressed even more conscientiously given the expanse of Britain’s empire, much of it still in existence due to the Commonwealth, and even more to the point, the nations like Canada and New Zealand who still recognize the king as the Head of State. In that pursuit, at some point an apologist for the British Empire must meet the challenge of the dark periods of Great Britain’s history as well, for example,  the two “Opium Wars” (1839-1842; 1856-1860) between the British Empire and China’s Qing Dynasty.

Calderón de Burgos underscores Schwennesen’s attention to the influence of the School of Salamanca on the American Founders, and their apparent interest in, for example, Juan de Mariana’s The General History of Spain, a copy of which was owned by John Adams. She notes that John Locke, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson had this book “in common.” Since both Schwennesen and Calderón de Burgos support their argument by noting the apparent influence the School of Salamanca had on the American Founders, it would be helpful to further investigate that influence more concretely.

It seems that in addition to Mariana’s History of Spain, Adams also sought out Mariana's 1599 work “De Rege et Regis institutione.” He acknowledges receipt of one of Mariana’s books  in a letter to Thomas Brand Hollis on April 9, 1788, although he does not specify which of the volumes he has received:

In a letter to John Taylor, dated December 14, 1814, Adams is more expansive in his recognition of Mariana:

Finally, in support of this forum’s recognition of the profound thought of Francisco de Vitoria we might consider Ricardo José Cuéllar Real’s Francisco de Vitoria y las cuestiones de Indias. This helpful monograph organizes Vitoria’s scholarly thought on the controversy in the New World, in which the 16th century Thomist scholar, guided by St. Thomas Aquinas, pursues the controversy over the rights of the indigenous people. One of the first questions he must confront is an understandable one, namely whether the Indians were as fully human as the Europeans. The American Founders and 19th century settlers confront the same difficulty. With the Founders the question had to do with American Indians and American slaves. In both cases, leaders like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington recognized that they were trying to ascertain the nature of a defeated people in their subjugated stage. They nonetheless were eager to find evidence that both indigenous and enslaved people were their equals and deserving of dignity and liberty. In the case of American settlers in the mid-19th century, the Americans pushing westward were at times given to wonder if American Indians were sub-human. This was especially true of the most feared tribe, the Comanches. An extraordinary book, Empire of the Southern Moon, (2016) may leave the reader with the same question.

Vitoria also carefully parsed if Spain might legitimately subjugate certain native populations in the Americas because they engaged in cannibalism and human sacrifice. The Jesuit demonstrated how far ahead of his time he stood when he concluded that only those ruling a country could take action against its own citizens; those acting on behalf of another country could not do so. He made one exception: if there were missionaries in indigenous lands and they began to suffer violence at the hands of indigenous peoples, this gave another country the right to intervene.

Proceeding from the Aristotelian and Thomistic virtue of “temperance,” he said that the issue of human sacrifice was, at that juncture, part of the realidad between the Old World and the New World and could not easily be resolved. Finally, on the issue of the Christianization of the New World populations, Vitoria asserted that those so engaged must appeal to the “rationality” of the Indians; they could not rely on force. To those who argued that the Indians were incapable of such reason, Vitoria responded that they in fact were capable of reason by virtue of the Natural Law.