The Chain of Command: From the Spanish Crown to the Documentation of the Taíno People and the Legal Continuity of the Maya-We Nation

​

I. The Source of Authority: The Spanish Crown’s Role in Ordering Indigenous Documentation

The historical documentation of the Taíno people, particularly Ramón Pané’s 1498 account, “Relación acerca de las antigüedades de los indios,” was commissioned under the authority of King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile. At this time, Spain’s colonial expansion was directly controlled by the Catholic Monarchs, and every legal and administrative decision regarding the newly encountered Indigenous peoples fell under their direct governance.

​

A. The Role of the Monarchs in Colonial Documentation

1. Royal Authorization of Columbus’s Voyages:
    

   • The Capitulations of Santa Fe (1492) was a formal agreement issued by King Ferdinand II and Queen Isabella, granting Columbus authority over newly discovered lands.

   • This document established Columbus as Viceroy and Governor of the Indies, giving him power over administrative and legal affairs regarding the Indigenous peoples.

   • This means that any subsequent order given by Columbus—such as the task assigned to Ramón Pané—was an extension of Spanish Crown authority.

2. The Monarchs’ Interest in Indigenous Conversion and Classification:
    

   • Spain was invested in both converting Indigenous populations to Christianity and categorizing them for governance and labor policies (such as the encomienda system).

   • Queen Isabella issued directives prohibiting unjust enslavement of Indigenous peoples in 1500, but by then, much of the damage had already been done under earlier policies initiated by Columbus and supported by Ferdinand II.

​

B. Who Managed Indigenous Affairs Under the Monarchs?

At the time of Pané’s documentation (1493–1498), Spain had no official Council of the Indies (established later in 1524). However, Indigenous affairs were managed through the following channels:

1. Christopher Columbus (Viceroy and Governor of the Indies)
    

   • He was the direct administrator of the Caribbean territories on behalf of the Crown.

   • He was responsible for overseeing religious and governmental activities, including Pané’s mission to study the Taíno people.

2. Juan Rodríguez de Fonseca (Bishop of Burgos, Chief Colonial Administrator)
    

   • He acted as head of Spanish colonial affairs, directing governance policies, including the classification and treatment of Indigenous peoples.

   • His role as chief administrator meant that any documentation of Indigenous governance structures would have been reviewed and used for colonial administration.

3. Missionary Orders (Franciscans & Ramón Pané’s Role as a Jeronymite Friar)
    

   • The Catholic Monarchs relied on religious figures to document Indigenous cultures and assess their capacity for Christianization and governance.

   • Ramón Pané was specifically tasked with studying the Taíno, indicating the Crown’s official interest in their governance structures.

 

II. Making the Connection: How Spanish Colonial Documentation Confirms the Taíno as a Governed Indigenous People

With the direct chain of command established between Ferdinand II, Columbus, and Ramón Pané, the next critical step is proving that Pané’s documentation explicitly or implicitly acknowledges the Taíno as a self-governing Indigenous nation.

A. Taíno Governance as Documented in "Relación acerca de las antigüedades de los indios" (1498)

Pané’s work contains key elements that implicitly recognize the governance structures of the Taíno people:

1. The Existence of a Political Hierarchy:
    

   • Pané describes the Taíno caciques (chiefs), who ruled over villages and exercised authority in a structured leadership system.

   • This hierarchical structure mirrors other Indigenous nations, such as the Maya, Aztec, and Inca, which have long been recognized as self-governing Indigenous polities.

2. Territorial Organization & Administration:
    

   • The Taíno occupied specific territories divided under the rule of different caciques, suggesting a system of governance with distinct regional control.

   • Spanish colonial records acknowledge these divisions, further supporting that Taíno governance was a structured and functioning system before European intervention.

3. Judicial and Customary Laws Among the Taíno:
    

   • Pané’s account references Taíno customs, traditions, and laws, indicating an established system of societal regulation.

   • These customs functioned independently of European influence, reinforcing that they were self-governed before the arrival of the Spanish.

4. Religious and Cultural Autonomy:
    

   • The Taíno had a spiritual and religious system that governed their societal values and decisions.

   • Pané’s focus on these aspects demonstrates that their governance was not just administrative but also rooted in cultural sovereignty.

 

III. Linking Taíno Recognition to the Maya-We Nation’s Legal Standing

By proving that the Taíno were historically recognized as a self-governing Indigenous nation, we establish the legal foundation for the Maya-We Nation as a continuation of this governance. This is reinforced through legal doctrines, international law, and the supremacy of treaties.

​

A. Recognition Under Domestic and International Law

1. Supremacy Clause (Article VI, U.S. Constitution):
    

   • The U.S. government is bound by treaty obligations and must respect Indigenous rights under domestic law.

   • Spain’s prior recognition of the Taíno as a governed people provides a historical precedent that cannot be ignored under U.S. jurisdiction.

2. Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934:
    

   • This act allows Indigenous nations to reorganize their governance if they can demonstrate historical governance structures.

   • The Maya-We Nation, as the successor to the Taíno, meets this requirement by historical documentation.

3. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007) & ADRIP (2016):
    

   • These international frameworks affirm the right of Indigenous peoples to self-governance and cultural preservation.

   • Since the Taíno were once self-governed and the Maya-We Nation represents their modern continuation, these protections apply.

​

B. Doctrine of Estoppel: Preventing Denial of Recognition

• Spain and the U.S. cannot deny the Taíno's recognition after historically classifying them as an organized people.

• Under Mitchell v. United States (1983) and related case law, Indigenous governance remains valid unless formally rescinded by treaty, which has never occurred.

• Any refusal to recognize the Maya-We Nation would violate principles of legal consistency under the Doctrine of Estoppel.

 

IV. Conclusion: The Unbroken Legal Standing of the Maya-We Nation

Based on historical documentation, Spanish Crown directives, Indigenous governance structures, and modern legal frameworks, we conclude:

1. The Taíno were a recognized Indigenous governance structure under Spanish colonial records.

2. This recognition was not rescinded and continues to be valid under domestic and international Indigenous rights laws.

3. The Maya-We Nation, as the legal and cultural successor to the Taíno, maintains the right to self-governance, legal recognition, and international acknowledgment.

4. The U.S. government is legally obligated to respect and recognize the Maya-We Nation under the Supremacy Clause, IRA, UNDRIP, ADRIP, and binding case law.

5. Any failure to recognize this Indigenous governance structure would violate both U.S. constitutional law and international human rights treaties.

​

This  establishes the Maya-We Nation's undeniable historical, legal, and political legitimacy, ensuring that no governmental body—domestic or international—can lawfully dismiss its claim to Indigenous recognition.

​​

​

​

Index and Legal Sources for the Argument on the Legal Continuity of the Maya-We Nation

​

I. Establishing the Source of Authority: The Spanish Crown’s Role in Ordering Indigenous Documentation

A. The Role of the Monarchs in Colonial Documentation

1. Royal Authorization of Columbus’s Voyages
    

   • Primary Source: The Capitulations of Santa Fe (1492)

     • Issued by King Ferdinand II and Queen Isabella I, granting Columbus the right to govern newly discovered lands.

     • Legal Implication: Established that Columbus’ administration and any orders given by him, such as commissioning Pané, were direct extensions of Spanish Crown authority.

2. The Monarchs' Interest in Indigenous Conversion and Classification
    

   • Primary Source: Isabella’s Decree on Indigenous Enslavement (1500)

     • Established early Spanish policies regarding the treatment of Indigenous peoples.

     • Legal Implication: Shows official recognition of Indigenous peoples' governance as Spain sought to regulate their classification.

B. Management of Indigenous Affairs under the Monarchs

1. Christopher Columbus (Viceroy and Governor of the Indies)
    

   • Primary Source: Book of Privileges (1502)

     • Recognized Columbus' authority to oversee religious and governmental activities.

2. Juan Rodríguez de Fonseca (Chief Colonial Administrator)
    

   • Primary Source: Royal Orders Issued to Fonseca (1493-1504)

     • Gave Fonseca control over colonial governance policies, including documentation of Indigenous governance structures.

3. Missionary Orders & Pané’s Role
    

   • Primary Source: Relación acerca de las antigüedades de los indios (1498)

     • First ethnographic account of the Taíno, describing governance, customs, and laws.

     • Legal Implication: Confirms that Spain officially documented the Taíno as a governed Indigenous people.

II. Spanish Colonial Documentation Confirming the Taíno as a Governed Indigenous People

A. Taíno Governance in Relación acerca de las antigüedades de los indios

1. Political Hierarchy
    

   • Primary Source: Pané’s Account (1498)

     • Details the role of caciques and structured leadership.

     • Legal Implication: Establishes the Taíno as a self-governing polity.

2. Territorial Organization & Administration
    

   • Primary Source: Spanish Census Records of the Indies (1500s)

     • Documented Taíno village organization and cacicazgos (chiefdoms).

3. Judicial and Customary Laws
    

   • Primary Source: Pané’s Account (1498)

     • Acknowledges legal customs, reinforcing self-governance.

4. Religious and Cultural Autonomy
    

   • Primary Source: Pané’s Account (1498)

     • Documents spiritual beliefs, confirming cultural sovereignty.

III. Linking Taíno Recognition to the Maya-We Nation’s Legal Standing

A. Recognition Under Domestic and International Law

1. Supremacy Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article VI)
    

   • Legal Implication: Treaties recognizing Indigenous governance remain legally binding.

2. Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934
    

   • Legal Implication: Allows Indigenous nations to reorganize if they can prove historical governance structures.

3. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007) & American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (ADRIP, 2016)
    

   • Legal Implication: Affirms Indigenous rights to self-governance and cultural preservation.

B. Doctrine of Estoppel

1. Case Law: Mitchell v. United States (1983)
    

   • Legal Implication: Indigenous governance remains valid unless rescinded by treaty.

2. Historical Treaty Obligations
    

   • Primary Source: Treaty of Tordesillas (1494)

     • Establishes Spain’s initial claims over Indigenous territories.

IV. Conclusion: Legal Continuity of the Maya-We Nation

1. Legal Summary
    

   • The Taíno were historically recognized as a self-governing Indigenous nation.

   • This recognition remains valid under both domestic and international legal frameworks.

   • The Maya-We Nation, as the successor to the Taíno, retains the right to self-governance and recognition.

2. Legal Obligations of the U.S. Government
    

   • Bound by treaty obligations, Indigenous rights laws, and the Supremacy Clause.

   • Any refusal to recognize the Maya-We Nation would violate constitutional and international law.