7. Pretended property of an enemy in slaves may unquestionably be taken, and, when taken, will of course be at the disposal of the captor. If slaves are regarded as property, then will their confiscation come precisely within the rule already stated. But, since slaves are men, there is still another rule of public law applicable to them. It is clear, that, where there is an intestine division in an enemy country, we may take advantage of it, according to Halleck, in his recent work on International Law, “without scruple.”[30] But Slavery is more than an intestine division; it is a constant state of war. The ancient Scythians said to Alexander: “Between the master and slave no friendship exists; even in peace the Rights of War are still preserved.”[31] Giving freedom to slaves, a nation in war simply takes advantage of the actual condition of things. But there is another vindication of this right, which I prefer to present in the language of Vattel. After declaring that “in conscience and by the laws of equity” we may be obliged to restore “booty” recovered from an enemy who had taken it in unjust war, this humane publicist proceeds as follows. “The obligation is more certain and more extensive with regard to a people whom our enemy has unjustly oppressed. For a people thus spoiled of their liberty never renounce the hope of recovering it. If they have not voluntarily incorporated themselves with the state by which they have been subdued, if they have not freely aided her in the war against us, _we ought certainly so to use our victory as not merely to give them a new master, but to break their chains_. To deliver an oppressed people is a noble fruit of victory; it is a valuable advantage gained thus to acquire a faithful friend.”[32] These are not the words of a visionary, or of a speculator, or of an agitator, but of a publicist, an acknowledged authority on the Law of Nations. Therefore, according to the Rights of War, slaves, if regarded as property, may be declared free; or if regarded as men, they may be declared free, under two acknowledged rules: _first_, of self-interest, to procure an ally; and, _secondly_, of conscience and equity, to do an act of justice ennobling victory. * * * * * Such, Sir, are acknowledged Rights of War with regard to enemy property, whether within or beyond our territorial jurisdiction. I do little more than state these rights, without stopping to comment. If they seem harsh, it is because war in essential character is harsh. It is sufficient for our present purpose that they exist. * * * * *