Conquerors, it is true, seldom trouble
themselves to make the distinction, but they willingly permit the
confusion of war to sweep all together: but yet this alters not
the right; for the conquerors power over the lives of the
conquered, being only because they have used force to do, or
maintain an injustice, he can have that power only over those who
have concurred in that force; all the rest are innocent; and he
has no more title over the people of that country, who have done
him no injury, and so have made no forfeiture of their lives,
than he has over any other, who, without any injuries or
provocations, have lived upon fair terms with him.
Sec. 180. Thirdly, The power a conqueror gets over those he
overcomes in a just war, is perfectly despotical: he has an
absolute power over the lives of those, who, by putting
themselves in a state of war, have forfeited them; but he has not
thereby a right and title to their possessions. This I doubt
not, but at first sight will seem a strange doctrine, it being so
quite contrary to the practice of the world; there being nothing
more familiar in speaking of the dominion of countries, than to
say such an one conquered it; as if conquest, without any more
ado, conveyed a right of possession. But when we consider, that
the practice of the strong and powerful, how universal soever it
may be, is seldom the rule of right, however it be one part of
the subjection of the conquered, not to argue against the
conditions cut out to them by the conquering sword.
Pages:
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161