the _lives_ of the captured, and of course none to their
_liberty_: they had no right to their _blood_, and of course
none to their _service_. Their right therefore had no foundation in
justice. It was founded on a principle, contrary to the law of nature,
and of course contrary to that law, which people, under different
governments, are bound to observe to one another.

It is scarce necessary to observe, as a farther testimony of the
injustice of the measure, that the Europeans, after the introduction of
Christianity, exploded this principle of the ancients, as frivolous and
false; that they spared the lives of the vanquished, not from the sordid
motives of _avarice_, but from a conscientiousness, that homicide
could only be justified by _necessity_; that they introduced an
_exchange_ of prisoners, and, by many and wise regulations,
deprived war of many of its former horrours.

But the advocates for slavery, unable to defend themselves against these
arguments, have fled to other resources, and, ignorant of history, have
denied that the _right of capture_ was the true principle, on which
slavery subsisted among the ancients. They reason thus. "The learned
Grotius, and others, have considered slavery as the just consequence of
a private war, (supposing the war to be just and the opponents in a
state of nature), upon the principles of _reparation_ and
_punishment_. Now as the law of nature, which is the rule of
conduct to individuals in such a situation, is applicable to members of
a different community, there is reason to presume, that these principles
were applied by the ancients to their prisoners of war; that their
_effects_ were confiscated by the right of _reparation_, and
their _persons_ by the right of _punishment_."--