nt, to commit that, which is considered as a less. But what
shall we say to the _hypothesis_? We deny it to be true. The voice
of nature is against it. It is not lawful to kill, but on
_necessity_. Had there been a necessity, where had the wretched
captive survived to be broken with chains and servitude? The very act of
saving his life is an argument to prove, that no such necessity existed.
The _conclusion_ is therefore false. The captors had no right to
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_."--

But, such a presumption is false. The _right of capture_ was the
only argument, that the ancients adduced in their defence. Hence
Polybius; "What must they, (the Mantinenses) suffer, to receive the
punishment they deserve? Perhaps it will be sa