Wherever we look--to whatsoever period of history--conquest, or the settlement of more enlightened colonizers amid a barbarous tribe, seems the origin of slavery--modified according to the spirit of the times, the humanity of the victor, or the policy of the lawgiver.

The aboriginals of Greece were probably its earliest slaves [64],--yet the aboriginals might be also its earliest lords.

Suppose a certain tribe to overrun a certain country--conquer and possess it: new settlers are almost sure to be less numerous than the inhabitants they subdue; in proportion as they are the less powerful in number are they likely to be the more severe in authority: they will take away the arms of the vanquished--suppress the right of meetings--make stern and terrible examples against insurgents--and, in a word, quell by the moral constraint of law those whom it would be difficult to control merely by, physical force;--the rigidity of the law being in ratio to the deficiency of the force.

In times semi-civilized, and even comparatively enlightened, conquerors have little respect for the conquered--an immense and insurmountable distinction is at once made between the natives and their lords.

All ancient nations seem to have considered that the right of conquest gave a right to the lands of the conquered country.