Wasn't that due to Bartholomew de Casas, who raised some ruckus for Indians, leading to a debate in Valladolid?
I don't know too much about de las Casas, but his arguments seem to have been pretty influential in somewhat reducing oppression of Indians, at least in Spanish legal theory. In practice, lords and conquistadors on the spot routinely ignored these laws, and the government could do little beyond make inquiries and serve a kind of justice after the fact. Though Coronado at least sometimes took efforts to treat the Indians fairly--as fairly as one could expect a treasure-hunting man of war to show an utterly foreign and weaker people, anyway. Obviously he didn't try too hard, or he wouldn't have been summoned to court to answer the accusations of abuse, torture, murder, and other things. Coronado was actually quite a nice guy as far as conquistadors went.
Also interesting to note is that Hernando Cortes was technically breaking the law throughout his expedition in Mexico, for instance he defied the orders of the governor of Cuba and even fought against him or something. I think the Spanish government wasn't too happy with him and while they "rewarded" him they were highly distrustful of him and made sure he didn't do anything silly.
Quite. Cortes was wildly successful, especially beyond anyone's reasonable expectations for what the leader of a small expedition of mostly swordsmen could accomplish in a powerful foreign empire, and he made sure to send Charles V plenty of gifts as a show of his loyalty, success, and potential for great riches. So he got pardoned for invading several countries without permission, though the government was understandably suspicious and declined to let him lead some
entradas north into the Southwest.
I think that's related but not the only cause - though I don't know much about the topic, I think the Spaniards had differing opinions on how to deal with the natives. Though the debate on whether the native Amerindians were people and thus could be saved by conversion is a interesting thing.
As far as I can tell by my skimming of several books on the topic, the Spanish saw the Indians as strange and sometimes primitive people, but as virgin soil for conversion. The Spanish generally sought to convert them by peaceful means, and thought it only fair to give the Indians a chance to convert and submit peacefully after issuing the
Requerimiento. Of course, the terms of the
Requerimiento also allowed force if faced with Indian resistance, , and obviously conquistadors tended to care very little about fair treatment beyond what served their immediate interests. Coronado and Cortes sought to win allies through goodwill and fairness whenever possible, since it made life so much easier, but this wasn't because they were nice, and wasn't necessarily out of a desire to obey the law.
It may be interesting to note that some of the Aztec nobility were in fact assimilated into the Spanish nobility - one of Montezuma's grandson (I think) was granted a title (Duke of Montezuma or something) and it is still held today by his descendants.
There was a lot of intermarriage between conquistadors and natives, since they brought few Spanish women most of the time. Political marriages also happened; notably, the chronicler Garcilaso de la Vega was the son of a conquistador and an Incan noblewoman.
And hey, thanks for the discussion! It's actually gotten me more motivated to work on my 25-page paper on factors in the success or failure of the conquistadors' expeditions due Wednesday!
