The Conquest of America by Spain was overall positive

I am asked to define better what I mean by "overall positive", but I must admit I am at loss to find a clearer way of saying "mostly good". I hope what I mean will become clear by my arguments. The justification for the conquest of America was not, as in the case of the English or the French, for economic motives. The title of legitimacy was the papal bull which gave the Spanish monarchs the prerogative to evangelize the newly discovered lands. A cynical or materialist historian would argue that all historical events have an economic motive, and I do not mean that individuals were not motivated by gold and glory. We cannot know what their innermost motivations truly were, nevertheless, material gain was not the official focus, and this had concrete effects beyond mere words. The first of these effects was the obligation to take missionaries wherever the explorers or conquerors would go. Today, this is generally seen as a bad thing; an imposition of one moral and cultural code over another country. We cannot uncritically transfer our value system to another time without first understanding their point of view and motivations. This was seen as the greatest benefit possible: taking the truth and salvation to people who had up to now not had the opportunity to know it. This was seen and intended not as an unbearable imposition, but as an incalculable benefit: and it did indeed have benefits, as it was precisely these missionaries who served as a defender of the rights of the natives, as we shall see. The second of these is a mindset of protection of the natives by the Spanish crown. The Testament of Isabelle the Catholic made clear that the natives were to be given every protection: "As we were granted by the Holy Apostolic See the islands and firm land (...) discovered and to be discovered, our main intention has been (...) to induce and bring its people to our Holy Catholic Faith and send those lands (...) prelates, religious and clergy (...) to instruct [them] in the faith. (...) for this reason I implore the King, my lord, most affectionately, and charge and order the Princess my daughter and the Prince her husband that (...) this be their principal end (...) and that they not allow that the [Indians] (...) receive any grievance in their persons or goods; rather I order that they be well and justly treated. And if they have received some grievance this be remedied so what is charged and ordered us by the Apostolic letters is obeyed in all things." Bartolome de las Casas could be considered the world's first lobbyist. When he saw the abuses of the encomienda he set out to denounce them (by exaggerating his case to the point of libel, but for a good cause nonetheless) and make sure that Carlos I (V of Germany) follow Isabelle's last will and testament. So ardently did he preach to the Emperor saying his soul was in danger should the Conquest continue that Carlos I actually ordered a stop to the conquest. No land should be taken until he were sure it was not a mortal sin. He therefore called for all the greatest theologians of the day to get together and decide what the course of action should be. This was called the Controversy of Valladolid. Las Casas took to himself the defense of the Indians while Sepulveda defended the conquest. And Las Casas won out. That's right, the King of Spain and Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, the man who owned half of Europe (including Italy) and had power over the new lands to the West decided to back Las Casas instead of the guy who said he was right in everything he did. The Controversy of Valladolid led to two consequences: the writing of strong laws in protection of the natives called Leyes de Indias (laws of the Indies) and the appointment of Bartolome de las Casas as bishop of Chiapas by recommendation of the emperor, as well as his title as "Procurer and Universal Defender of all Indians". de las Casas continued his lobbying efforts and was able to get further protections from the crown. In addition to the immediate effects, the Controversy of Valladolid, and the intellectual output leading up to it, had tremendous effects that still last for all of us today. Francisco de Vitoria, who was dead by the time of the Controversy, but whose work influenced its outcome more than any of its live participants is recognized as the father of international law and the man who laid the groundwork for the present conception of Universal Human Rights. His ideas about the natural law and rights over and above the impositions of the State not only countered the idea of absolute monarchy before its advent, it also pioneered the idea of conscientious objection as an inalienable right of man against even the Emperor. Your soul is yours, he argued, and if the king should order you to do something which would put your soul in jeopardy it is still you who sill answer to God for those actions, and not the King. (The basis, by the way, of the verdict of the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis owes its argument to Vitoria, merely changing the language from that of a moralist to that of jurisprudence: rather than saying immortal soul and mortal sin, saying crimes against humanity and genocide). The very framework, therefore, that is used to attack the Conquest (accusations of genocide using the bloated figures given by las Casas and by Spain's political enemies and the like) owes its existence to that very Conquest. Other countries never stopped to think of the conquered as anything more than the "other" to be exploited or exterminated. In the case of the Spanish Conquest such actions were contrary to the nation's policy and met with opposition both in America by the missionaries and in the peninsula by the Crown.