James Russell Soley, Professor U. S. Navy, Confederate Military History, a library of Confederate States Military History: Volume 7.1, The blockade and the cruisers
Clement Anselm Evans, Ed.

A great deal of uncalled — for abuse has been heaped upon the South for the work of the Confederate cruisers, and their mode of warfare has been repeatedly denounced as barbarous and piratical in official and unofficial publications. But neither the privateers, like the Petrel and the Savannah, nor the commissioned cruisers, like the Alabama and the Florida, were guilty of any practices which, as against their enemies, were contrary to the laws of war. The expediency of enforcing the right of maritime capture has been much discussed during the last hundred years, and has often been questioned on humanitarian grounds. It is not proposed to consider that question here. For the present purpose, it is sufficient that the right to capture an enemy's private property at sea is fully recognized by the law and practice of nations to-day. All that is necessary is to establish the enemy ownership, and this being done, the prize-courts of every country in the world will decree confiscation. Whether the prize is destroyed at sea, or is brought into a prize-court and condemned, can make no possible difference to the owner, if the owner is clearly an enemy. The officer making the capture is responsible to his Government, and as the proceeds of the prize usually go in part to the State, the officer's Government may and doubtless will require him to bring in his prize, if possible, for adjudication. But this is a matter purely of internal discipline, a question between the State and its officers. So also, if by accident or intention neutral property is captured and destroyed, a question arises between the captor's government and that of the neutral, but it is a question with which the other belligerent has nothing to do.