Comparing The De Vitoria's Arguments And The 1950s US

There are obvious differences between the de Vitoria's arguments and the 1950s U.S. Supreme Court decision. They collide with each other in their attitudes and approaches in dealing with Indians. After being assigned by the Spanish king to address the right of the Spanish in the New world, de Vitoria delivered the lecture entitle “On the Indians Lately Discovered” in 1532. In the lecture, he emphasized that the Indians had natural rights as land owners in managing their lands. He also noted that the Spanish Crown could not claim their ownership of the land they discovered unless there were no properties on the land. Besides, “the Spanish and other European nations used to secure the goodwill and consent of tribes” (Wilkins and Lomawaima, 28).
The establishment of the treaties was aimed to build friendship, peace and military alliance. All these evidences showed the Spanish’s respect to Indians as well as the desire to build a good relationship with them.
On the contrary, the Tee-Hit-Ton by the Supreme Court was utilized to deny the indigenous nations any legal title to their lands (Wilkins and Lomawaima, 23). The American government did declare in the Fifth Amendment that they will compensate the legal landowners whose land was took or condemned. While only the tribal ownership of land was recognized by the American government, then the land would be protected by law. Indians had no land rights although they settled on this land earlier. So the de Vitoria's arguments are totally different from the Tee-Hit Ton. The former one approved the identity of indigenous nations and identified their ownership of the land. While the latter one was established with the thoughts that they were superior to the Indians rather than equal relationship. They came to this land with the purpose to conquer the Indians.