The Conquest of America by Spain was overall positive

My opponent contends that my argument hinges upon the figure of Bartolome de las Casas and that his man was an exception in the general depravity of the Spanish Conquest. This quite simply does not stand to reason. The position of influence of Las Casas was not a matter of pure luck but was rather given him by the Spanish Crown and regents. The contention ignores the fact of the consistent position in favor of the Indians by the Crown from the very days of Isabelle the Catholic. This was not isolated to her. When her husband was regent of Castille, this policy was maintained, after his death Cardinal Cisneros not only continued it but was the very man who appointed Las Casas "Procurer and Universal Defender of all Indians" (following that centuries taste for long-winded titles), Carlos I was the man who promulgated the Laws of the Indies forbidding the creation of new encomiendas (sentencing the institution to extinction, as they were not hereditary). (1) This general goodwill is also seen in other projects that took place in America, such as the creation of schools, hospitals and the first university: all for the use of both Spaniards and Indians. Now, were the American territories stratified societies. Yes, they certainly were. Then again so was peninsular Spain. Both economically and in terms of political organization, there was little difference between the laws of Castille and the American territories except the special protections given the natives that were not afforded Spaniards and the figure of the viceroy who was to act as the kings "alter ego".Now, it is true that these laws and this general goodwill faced difficulties in their implementation. Especially at first with the rebellion of the encomenderos, however the fact is that they not only held and were eventually implemented in full, but they were also subsequently expanded. Something is not "entirely the actions of one man" when it represents the juridical context in which the Conquest took place. I would argue rather that the rebellions and illegalities represent individual actions against the general rule. It is frankly bizarre that someone could point as proof that the Spanish conquest was cruel that those who wished to enslave the Indians in Peru rebelled against the government that wished to protect them.But let us take a look for a moment at the figures Con brings out as leading figures of the Conquest:Juan Ponce de León - A man whose obsessive search for the fountain of youth led him to Florida, from where he was ousted by the Indians to die an untimely death from the wounds sustained in battle. A man who didn't even conquer any territory and is remembered mostly by the discovery of Florida (which he took to be an Island) and the whole Fountain of Youth thing. (2) Hardly a "leading figure", and hardly relevant to our point.Hernán Cortés - The massacre at the main temple was due, as per you own source, to the fact that the Spaniards came upon a ceremony involving religious sacrifice. There are two sources claimed on that site, one contemporary (the Letters of Hernán Cortés to the king of Spain) and the other written four hundred years later by some anthropologist in the 1990s asking 20th century Mexicans who still speak Nahuatl what happened. (3) That is not sound history. As to the actions of Hernán Cortés after the conquest of Mexico, I am rather surprised you would cite a source that speaks of his efforts to establish "civil rights" in the territory. That is, his efforts to apply Spanish law faithfully. He was recognized by the Franciscan missionaries as a man interested in the fates of the Indians in the territories he conquered and most of what we know of the Aztecs we know by his detailed and praise-filled accounts of what he saw. (4)Francisco Vázquez de Coronado - It is simply not accurate to say Coronado began the war in question. According to David Roberts, author of The Pueblo Revolt (not exactly suspect of sympathy for the Spaniards), it was the Pecos Indians who, first killing the advance party and then attacking and destroying the first mission, started the war. They were an agricultural, territorial and highly warlike people. It is simply intellectually dishonest to posit that as an act of Spanish aggression when Coronado's journey took him over so many territories with so many different people with no incidents whatsoever. Nuño de Guzmán - Nuño de Guzmán, as per your own source, was "arrested for treason, abuse of power, mistreatment of the indigenous inhabitants of his territories and he was sent to Spain in shackles". Not exactly representative of Spain's objectives whatever revisionist historians and contemporary propagandists might have wished to make us believe. His inhuman treatment of the natives made him powerful enemies, among them bishop Zumárraga and Hernán Cortés. His powerful family connections freed him from the death penalty usually reserved for crimes such as his and he died either in the dungeons of the castle of Torrejón de Velasco or (according to some historians who found his name on a payroll) as a common castle guard in 1561. (5)You could, of course, doubtless bring yet another list of people who, in the course of the 500 year conquest committed crimes and abused their positions of power. My argument does not hinge upon every Spaniard being of noble character and acting according to the law. If it were the case that there were no abuses there would have been no need to have written the strongest laws of for the protection and benefit of a conquered people in history. What my case hinges on is this protection and interest for the material and spiritual well-being of the natives being the general tenor of the conquest. This I believe to be amply demonstrated by the facts, and that even those who abused their power and behaved cruelly would have been loath to justify cruelty in general, saying instead that their actions in particular were exceptionally justified (as in the case of Nuño de Guzmán, who claimed his executions and tortures to be for the greater good of the native population).In conclusion1. Abuses were, in some periods extended, but these were always contrary to law and Spanish policy and were invariably met with objections, resistance and official condemnation.2. The care and interest for the good of the natives was the general and mainstream position.3. I note my argument as to the lasting effects of the debates in Spain surrounding the Conquest leading to present-day conceptions of human rights and international law has not been answered. We must then consider this point dropped or conceded.Sources (1) http://www.ecured.cu... (2) http://www.biografica.info... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://www.hechohistorico.com.ar... (5) http://www.biografiasyvidas.com...