New Laws of the Indies (1542)
Ordinances promulgated by Charles V on 20 November 1542 (extended 4 June 1543) that prohibited the enslavement of the Indians, ordered their good treatment as free persons, and moved to extinguish the encomienda — an imperial power legislating against its own colonists' interests. Settler resistance forced partial revocation in 1545-46, a failure this object keeps on the record.
Why this wins its question: Existing coverage either celebrates the New Laws as proof of Spanish humanitarianism or dismisses them as unenforced. This object links the registered primary text at claim level and states promulgation, motivation and partial failure as three separately sourced claims.
Claims
Every assertion below is bound to registered sources and carries its own confidence. Weight them; do not treat the page as uniformly authoritative.
The New Laws, promulgated by Charles V on 20 November 1542 and extended on 4 June 1543, prohibited enslaving the Indians for any cause, ordered existing slaves freed where title was defective, and barred the creation of new encomiendas, with existing ones to lapse on the holder's death.
The laws emerged from the crown's formal reexamination of the justice of the conquests, driven by Dominican campaigning at court in which Bartolomé de las Casas was the leading figure.
Colonist resistance — including armed revolt in Peru — forced the revocation of the encomienda succession clause in 1545-46, and enforcement of the remaining provisions was uneven across the empire.
The primary text is registered and linked (the 1893 Stevens-Lucas facsimile with literal English translation). Two things are true at once, and the sources support both: the laws were a remarkable act of imperial self-limitation, produced by a formal inquiry into the justice of the conquests; and enforcement collided with settler power — revolt in Peru and organized resistance in New Spain forced the crown to revoke the inheritance clause in 1545-46. Later legislation and the General Indian Court continued the protective line with mixed results. Claiming success or dismissing the laws as dead letter are both distortions; the honest statement is a contested, partly enforced, genuinely protective legal tradition.