The Right of American Slavery

by T. W. Hoit

Reason will bring all things right. We must take things as they are, not as fancy would paint them. It is of no use to get exasperated because the Negro is dark of skin, and because his inferiority and degradation adapt him to the rougher, or rudimental departments and pursuits of civilization. Pity for him on account of the labor which makes his sleep sweet, and his digestion perfect, is thrown away. He knows nothing of the ennui of sloth, nor the misanthropy of idle declaimers. He has his rude affections, and does not hate wrongs which he does not know nor feel, nor is he shocked at manacles which he cannot see, and which hold him from falling into the abyss of barbarism, whence they have lifted him. He loves his condition as a slave to civilization, because his instinct tells him it is better than subjection to the usages and wrongs of the condition from whence he has risen. If he is satisfied with his present condition, it is from an intuitive instinct, teaching him his fitness for it, and shows, by the slowness of the transition from barbarism to civilization, how wide and deep is the gulf which divides the one from the other.

UNITY OF THE AFRICAN RACES.

I use the term barbarism in contradistinction to civilization, and very respectfully refer to authorities of repute in justification of this use of the word, both to designate the quality of the thing, and the precise locality of its fittest application; for although Herodotus tells us that the Egyptians and Greeks applied the term barbari to all who spoke a language different from their own; and even the Hindoos used almost the same word to express the quality indicated, differing only by the accidental dissimilarity of the Sanskrit orthography, which makes it varvvarah or varvvaras, we have the authority of Professor Wilson, who says it means "an outcast, and in another sense, woolly or curly haired, as the hair of the African." And for authorities showing the unity of the Negro races, dialects, and languages, in Western, Southern, and Central Africa, I refer to the writings of Progart, Ritter, Oldendorf, Marsden, Bruseiotti, Harves, Grandpre, Vater, Salt, Ludolf, and Oldfield; who, from other motives than those which have prompted the partial accounts of more recent travelers and writers on the subject, have shown conclusively, that the degrees of barbarism existing in the tribes inhabiting the Western and Southern coasts of Africa, and the interior, are, in fact, mere modifications of that same barbarism, produced by local causes, and mitigated only by the force of nature from without, rather than by any inherent quality belonging to any portion of the Negro race. I speak of language as the connecting chain which links together the various African tribes, showing, if not their identity, their immediate connection, and holding to the account of barbarism those exceptions to the rule of barbarism which suggest the pretext for breaking down the barriers which divide barbarism from civilization, and form the basis of all the false philanthropy and efforts of political emancipation which are the curse of the age and country in which we live.

According to Pritchard, and others familiar with the subject, the slaves exported from Congo, which was long the principal resort of the Portuguese traders in black men, have always been regarded by slave-dealers and planters as genuine Negroes. If the physical traits of the Mapoota tribe, who will, as I suppose, be admitted to be undoubtedly of the Kafir race, so fairly represent the Negro character, it will be less difficult to admit that the natives of Mozambique and Congo belong to the same stock. All the inhabitants of the great empire of Congo speak one language, though it is divided into a number of dialects, including the dialect of Loango in the north, that of Congo in the south, and Banda, or idiom of Cassanga, in the interior, forming, collectively, one nearly allied family of languages, or, in fact, one language.

TRAVELERS IN AFRICA.

Since emancipation contemplates the transfer of the slaves to Africa, as the means of mitigating those supposed evils to which they are subjected, having already established by way of derision a republic there, I deem it legitimate to make some inquiry into the nature and condition of the inhabitants of Africa, in order to ascertain if such a change would be expedient or proper, with a view to the amelioration of the condition of the slaves. Of course, to do this, we must take the general authorities of history, and not confine ourselves to those individual authorities of recent date, which may be influenced by the popular delusion of Negro equality, or, for purposes of gain or from political motives, have written books to sell, or been employed for pay to belie the known truths of history.

CANNIBALISM.

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.

CANNIBALISM IN AFRICA.

In the "Universal Vocabulary," which is compiled from the very highest authority (p. 218), we learn that the Jagas, of the kingdom of Congo, "take pleasure in eating young women!" And "a princess was so fond of her gallants, that she ate them successively!" "Their choicest food is warm human blood!" "The Jaga chieftain, Cassangi, used to have a young woman killed every day for his table!" "Five or six strong men will at once destroy and share the flesh of a captive." "The women are equally as ferocious as the men, delighting to cleave the skull, and suck the warm brain of the slain!" This is solemn history, though almost horribly incredible.