With regard to cannibalism, I demand that the advocates of
emancipation either adopt it as right and proper, or denounce it, as
I do, as beneath the dignity of ordinary animal existence, and as the
most disgusting prerogative of barbarism. Probably they will adopt it
on the very antique authority of Zeno, Diogenes, Chrysippius, and the
Stoics, who esteemed it perfectly reasonable for men to devour one
another; or because, in China (and other countries) it is practiced,
where, according to Herrera, one great market is supplied with human
flesh alone, for the better sort of people; or because cannibalism was
universal before the days of Orpheus. I almost fear lest the
emancipationists, by adopting cannibalism as right, with such high
authorities and precedents to support their position, may endeavor to
palliate African cannibalism on the ground that it is not a monopoly,
and claim exemption from the great verdict of modern civilization
which denounces, as forfeited and condemned, this disgusting and
leading custom of barbarism. But if the common sense of the
Anglo-Saxon race did not almost universally denounce this hideous
custom, I would bring Sextus Empiricus to show that the first laws
ever enacted were to prevent men from devouring each other; and even
this may be declared, by our sophistical emancipationists, to be one
of the first violations of _natural right_. If the right of
cannibalism is claimed, then will nature assert its wrong, and
vindicate civilization. But if cannibalism is rejected by the
emancipationists, then let us see to what dangers and degradation he
would expose the now happy and contented slave.