FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[17]Some, however, represent the great apostle to have been a rigid vegetable eater. On this point I have no settled opinion.[18]It may be found at full length at page 233 of the 6th volume of the Library of Health.[19]Instances, he says, are not rare (but this I doubt), of two hundred children born to a man by his different wives, in some parts of the interior of Africa.[20]A date but little later than that of the work whence this article is extracted.

[17]Some, however, represent the great apostle to have been a rigid vegetable eater. On this point I have no settled opinion.

[18]It may be found at full length at page 233 of the 6th volume of the Library of Health.

[19]Instances, he says, are not rare (but this I doubt), of two hundred children born to a man by his different wives, in some parts of the interior of Africa.

[20]A date but little later than that of the work whence this article is extracted.

The Pythagoreans.—The Essenes.—The Bramins.—Society of Bible Christians.—Orphan Asylum of Albany.—The Mexican Indians.—School in Germany.—American Physiological Society.

The following chapter did not come within the scope of my plan, as it was originally formed. But in prosecuting the labors of preparing a volume on vegetable diet, it has more and more seemed to me desirable to add a short account of some of the communities and associations of men, both of ancient and modern times, who, amid a surrounding horde of flesh-eaters, have withstood the power of temptation, and proved, in some measure, true to their own nature, and the first impulses of mercy, humanity, and charity. I shall not, of course, attempt to describe all the sects and societies of the kind to which I refer, but only a few of those which seem to me most important.

One word may be necessary in explanation of the term communities. I mean by it, smaller communities, or associations. There have been, and still are, many whole nations which might be called vegetable-eating communities; but of such it is not my purpose to speak at present.

Pythagoras appears to have flourished about 550 years before Christ. He was, probably, a native of theisland of Samos; but a part of his education, which was extensive and thorough, was received in Egypt. He taught a new philosophy; and, according to some, endeavored to enforce it by laying claim to supernatural powers. But, be this as it may have been, he was certainly a man of extraordinary qualities and powers, as well as of great and commanding influence. In an age of great luxury and licentiousness, he taught, both by example and precept, the most rigid doctrines of sobriety, temperance, and purity. He abstained from all animal food, and limited himself entirely to vegetables; of which he usually preferred bread and honey. Nor did he allow the free use of every kind of vegetable; for beans, and I believe every species of pulse, were omitted. Water was his only drink. He lived, it is said, to the age of eighty; and even then did not perish from disease or old age, but from starvation in a place where he had sought a retreat from the fury of his enemies.

His disciples are said to have been exceedingly numerous, in almost all quarters of the then known world, especially in Greece and Italy. It is impossible, however, to form any conjecture of their numbers. The largest school or association of his rigid followers is supposed to have been at the city of Crotona, in South Italy. Their number was six hundred. They followed all his dietetic and philosophical rules with the utmost strictness. The association appears to have been, for a time, exceedingly flourishing. It was a society of philosophers, rather than of common citizens. They held their property in one common stock, for the benefit of the whole. The object of the association was chiefly to aid each other in promoting intellectual cultivation.Pythagoras did not teach abstinence from all hurtful food and drink, and an exclusive use of that which was thebest, for the sole purpose of making men better, or more healthy, or longer-livedanimals; he had a higher and nobler purpose. It was to make them better rationals, more truly noble and god-like—worthy the name of rational men, and of the relation in which they stood to their common Father. And yet, after all, his doctrines appear to have been mingled with much bigotry and superstition.

The following account of this singular sect of the ancient Jews is abridged from an article in the Annals of Education, for July, 1836. The number of this vegetable-eating sect is not known, though, according to Philo, there were four thousand of them in the single province of Judea.

"Pliny, says that the Essenes of Judea fed on the fruit of the palm-tree. But, however this may have been, it is agreed, on all hands, that, like the ancient Pythagoreans, they lived exclusively on vegetable food, and that they were abstinent in regard to the quantity even of this. They would not kill a living creature, even for sacrifices. It is also understood that they treated diseases of every kind—though it does not appear that they were subject to many—with roots and herbs. Josephus says they were long-lived, and that many of them lived over a hundred years. This he attributes to their 'regular course of life,' and especially to 'the simplicity of their diet.'"

The Bramins, or Brahmins, are, as is probably well known, the first of the fourcastesamong the Hindoos. They are the priests of the people, and are remarkable, in their way, for their sanctity. Of their number I am not at present apprised, but it must be very great. But, however great it may be, they are vegetable eaters of the strictest sect. They are not even allowed to eat eggs; and I believe milk and its products are also forbidden them; but of this I am not quite certain. Besides adhering to the strictest rules of temperance, they are also required to observe frequent fasts of the most severe kind, and to practice regular and daily, and sometimes thrice daily ablutions. They subsist much on green herbs, roots, and fruits; and at some periods of their ministry, they live much in the open air. And yet those of them who are true Bramins—who live up to the dignity of their profession—are among the most healthy, vigorous, and long-lived of their race. The accounts of their longevity may, in some instances, be exaggerated; but it is certain that, other things being equal, they do not in this respect fall behind any other caste of their countrymen.

This society has existed in Great Britain nearly half a century. They abstain from flesh, fish, and fowl—in short, from every thing that has animal life—and from all alcoholic liquors. Of their number in the kingdom I am not well informed. In Manchester they have three churches that have regular preachers; and frequent meetings have been held for discussing the diet questionwithin a few years, some of which have been well attended, and all of which have been interesting. Among those who have adopted "the pledge" at their meetings, are some of the most distinguished men in the kingdom, and a few of the members of parliament. Through these and other instrumentalities, the question is fairly up in England, and will not cease to be discussed till fairly settled.

A branch or colony from the parent society, under the pastoral care of Rev. Wm. Metcalfe, consisting of only eight members, came in 1817 and established itself in Philadelphia. They were incorporated as a society in 1830. In 1846 the number of their church members was about seventy, besides thirty who adhered to their abstemious habits, but were not in full communion. During the thirty years ending in 1846, twelve of their number died—four children and eight adults. The average age of the latter was fifty-seven years. Of the seventy now belonging to the society, nineteen are between forty and eighty years of age; and forty, in all, over twenty-five. Of the whole number, twelve have abstained from animal food thirty-seven years, seven from twenty to thirty years, and fifty-one never tasted animal food or drank intoxicating drinks.

And yet they are all—if we except Mr. Metcalfe, their minister—of the laboring class, and hard laborers, too. Their strength and power of endurance is fully equal to their neighbors in similar circumstances, and in several instances considerably superior. Mr. Fowler, the phrenologist, testifies, concerning one of them, that he is regarded as the strongest man in Philadelphia. I have long had acquaintance with this sect, through Mr. M., of Philadelphia, and Mr. Simpson, one of theirleading men in England, and have not a doubt of the truth of what has been publicly stated concerning them. They are a modest people, and make few pretensions; and yet they are a very meritorious people.

One thing very much to their advantage, as it shows the health-giving, health-preserving tendency of their practice and principles, remains to be related. When the yellow fever prevailed in Philadelphia, in 1818 and 1819, the infection seemed specially rife in the immediate vicinity of the Bible Christians. So, also, in 1832, with the cholera. And yet none of them fled. There they remained during the whole period of suffering, and afforded their sick neighbors all the relief in their power. Their minister, in particular, was unwearied in his efforts to do good. Yet not one of their little number ever sickened or died of either yellow fever or cholera.

Till within a few years, they have been governed solely by regard to religious principle, having known little of Physiology or any other science bearing on health. Of late, however, they have turned their attention to the subject, and have among them a respectable Physiological society, which holds its regular meetings, and is said to be flourishing.

From one of their publications, entitled "Vegetable Cookery," I have extracted the following very brief summary of their views concerning the use of animals for sustenance.

"The Society of Bible Christians abstain from animal food, not only in obedience to the Divine command, but because it is an observance, which, if more generally adopted, would prevent much cruelty, luxury, and disease, besides many other evils which cause misery in society. It would be productive of much good, by promotinghealth, long life, and happiness, and thus be a most effectual means of reforming mankind. It would entirely abolish that greatest of curses,war; for those who are so conscientious as not to kill animals, will never murder human beings. On all these accounts the system cannot be too much recommended. The practice of abstaining cannot be wrong; it must therefore be some consolation to be on the side of duty. If we err, we err on the sure side; it is innocent; it is infinitely better authorized and more nearly associated with religion, virtue, and humanity, than the contrary practice—and we have the sanction of the wisest and the best of men—of the whole Christian world, for several hundred years after the commencement of the Christian era."

I class this as a community, because it is properly so, and because I cannot conveniently class it otherwise. The facts which are to be related are too valuable to be lost. They were first published, I believe, in the Northampton Courier; and subsequently in the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, and in the Moral Reformer. In the present case, the account is greatly abridged.

The Orphan Asylum of Albany was established about the close of the year 1829, or the beginning of the year 1830. Shortly after its establishment, it contained seventy children, and subsequently many more. The average number, from its commencement to August 1836, was eighty.

For the first three years, the diet of the inmates consisted of fine bread, rice, Indian puddings, potatoes, and other vegetables and fruits, with milk; to which wasadded flesh or flesh-soup once a day. Considerable attention was also paid to bathing and cleanliness, and to clothing, air, and exercise. Bathing, however, was performed in a perfect manner, only once in three weeks. As many of them were received in poor health, not a few continued sickly.

In the fall of 1833, the diet and regimen of the inmates were materially changed. Daily ablution of the whole body, in the use of the cold shower or sponge bath—or, in cases of special disease, the tepid bath was one of the first steps taken; then the fine bread was laid aside for that made of unbolted wheat meal; and soon after flesh and flesh-soups were wholly banished; and thus they continued to advance, till, in about three months more, they had come fully upon the vegetable system, and had adopted reformed habits in regard to sleeping, air, clothing, exercise, etc. On this course, then, they continued to August, 1836, and, for aught I know, to the present time. The results were as follows:

During the first three years, or while the old system was followed, from four to six children were continually on the sick list, and sometimes more; and one or two assistant nurses were necessary. A physician was needed once, twice, or three times a week, uniformly; and deaths were frequent. During this whole period there were between thirty and forty deaths.

After the new system was fairly adopted, the nursery was soon entirely vacated, and the services of the nurse and physician no longer needed; and for more than two years no case of sickness or death took place. In the succeeding twelve months there were three deaths, but they were new inmates, and were diseased when they were received; and two of them were idiots. TheReport of the Managers says, "Under this system of dietetics (though the change ought not to be wholly attributed to the diet) the health of the children has not only been preserved, but those who came to the asylum weakly, have become healthy and strong, and greatly increased in activity, cheerfulness, and happiness." The superintendents also state, that "since the new regimen has been fully adopted, there has been a remarkable increase of health, strength, activity, vivacity, cheerfulness, and contentment among the children. Indeed, they appear to be, uniformly, perfectly healthy and happy; and the strength and activity they exhibit are truly surprising. The change of temper is very great. They have become less turbulent, irritable, peevish, and discontented; and far more manageable, gentle, peaceable, and kind to each other." One of them further observes, "There has been a great increase in their mental activity and power; the quickness and acumen of their perception, the vigor of their apprehension, and the power of their retention daily astonish me."

Such an account hardly needs comment; and I leave it to make its own impression on the candid and unbiassed mind and heart of the reader.

The Indian tribes of Mexico, according to the traveler Humboldt, live on vegetable food. A spot of ground, which, if cultivated with wheat, as in Europe, would sustain only ten persons, and which by its produce, if converted into pork or beef, would little more than support one, will in Mexico, when used for banana, sustain equally well two hundred and fifty.

The reader will do well to take the above fact, andthe estimates appended to it, along with him when he comes to examine what I have called the economical argument of the great diet question, in our last chapter, under the head, "The Moral Argument." We shall do well to remember another suggestion of Humboldt, that the habit of eating animals diminishes our natural horror of cannibalism.

There is, in the Annals of Education for August, 1836, an account of a school in which the same simple system which was pursued in the Orphan Asylum at Albany was adopted, and with the same happy results. I say thesamesystem; I believe plain meat was allowed occasionally, but it was seldom. Their food was exceedingly simple, consisting chiefly of bread and other vegetables, fruits and milk. Great attention was also paid to daily cold bathing. The following is the teacher's statement in regard to the results:

"I am at present the foster father of nearly seventy young people, who were born in all the varieties of climate from Lisbon to Moscow, and whose early education was necessarily very different. These young men are all healthy; not a single eruption is visible on their faces; and three years often pass, during which not a single one of them is confined to his bed; and in the twenty-one years that I have been engaged in this institution, not one pupil has died. Yet, I am no physician. During the first ten years of my residence here, no physician entered my house; and, not till the number of my pupils was very much increased, and I grew anxious not to overlook any thing in regard to them, did I begin to seek at all for medical advice.

"It is the mode of treating the young men here, which is the cause of their superior health; and this is the reason why death has not yet entered our doors. Should we ever deviate from our present principles—should we approach nearer the mode of living common in wealthy families—we should soon be obliged to establish, in our institution, as it is in others, medicine closets and nurseries. Instead of the freshness which now adorns the cheeks of our youth, paleness would appear, and our church-yards would contain the tombs of promising young men, who, in the bloom of their years, had fallen victims to disease."

This association was formed in 1837. When first formed, it consisted of one hundred and twenty-four males, and forty-one females; in all, one hundred and sixty-five. Their number soon increased to more than two hundred.

Most of these individuals were more or less feeble, and a very large proportion of them were actually suffering from chronic disease when they became members of the society. Not a few joined it, indeed, as a last resort, after having tried every thing else, as drowning men are said to catch at straws.

Nearly if not quite all the members of this society, as well as most of their families, abstained for a time from animal food. Some of them even adopted the vegetable system a year or so earlier. And there were a few who adopted it much sooner—one or two of them eight years earlier.

Of the individuals belonging to the Physiological Society or to their families, and adhering to the sameprinciples, two adults only died, and one child, during the first two years. I will not be quite positive, but there were four in all, two adults, and two children; but this was the extent of mortality among them for about fifteen months.

The whole number of those who belonged to the society, with those members of their families who adhered to their principles (estimating families, as is usually done, at five members to each), is believed to have been from three hundred and twenty to three hundred and fifty. The average mortality for the same number of healthy persons, during the same period, in Boston and the adjacent places, was about six or seven; though in some places it was much greater. In a single parish in Roxbury—and without any remarkable sickness—the mortality, for the same number of persons, was equal to ten or twelve.

Now, we must not forget, what I have already stated, that this society of vegetable-eaters—the two hundred adults, I mean—were generally invalids, and some of them given over by physicians. Instead, therefore, of only half the usual proportion of deaths among them, we might naturally enough have expected twice or three times the usual number. And this expectation would have appeared still better founded when it was considered that many made the change in their habits, and especially in their diet, very suddenly.

But the whole story is not yet told. Not only was the number of deaths very small, as above stated, but there were a great number of remarkable recoveries. Some, who had very obstinate complaints, appeared, for a time, to be entirely well. Others were getting well as fast as could be expected. Some, who werebroken down and prematurely old, seemed to renew their youth. Many became free from colds and eruptive complaints, to which they were formerly subject. And those who had acute diseases, of whom, however, the number was very small, did not suffer so much as is usually the case with flesh-eaters in circumstances otherwise apparently similar.

But a reverse at length came. They were led into their abstemious course by mere impulse in very many cases, and though a library was formed and meetings held, nobody, hardly, would read, and the meetings grew thin. They had no Joe Smith or Gen. Taylor to lead them—and mankind without leaders and without deep-toned principle, soon grow tired of war. Few will fight in such circumstances.

General Remarks on the Nature of the Argument—1. The Anatomical Argument.—2. The Physiological Argument.—3. The Medical Argument.—4. The Political Argument.—5. The Economical Argument.—6. The Argument from Experience.—7. The Moral Argument.—Conclusion.

In the progress of a work like this, it may not be amiss to present, in a very brief manner, the general arguments in defence of a diet exclusively vegetable. Some of them have, indeed, already been adverted to in the testimony of the preceding chapters; but not all. Besides, it seemed to me desirable to collect the whole in a general view.

There are various ways of doing this, according to the different aspects in which the subject is viewed. Every one has his own point of observation. I have mine. Conformably to the view I have taken, therefore, I shall endeavor to arrange my remarks under the nine following heads, viz., theanatomical, thephysiological, themedical, thepolitical, theeconomical, theexperimental, themoral, themillennial, and thebible arguments.

Dr. Cheyne relied principally on what I have called the medical argument—though what I mean by this may not be quite obvious, till I shall have presented it in its proper place. Not that he wholly overlooked any thing else; but this, as it seems to me, was with him the grand point. Nearly the same might be said of Dr. Lambe, and of several others.

Dr. Mussey seems to place the anatomical and physiological arguments in the foreground. It is true he makes much use of the medical and the moral arguments; but the former appear to be his favorites. Dr. Whitlaw, and some others, incline to make the moral and political arguments more prominent. Mr. Graham, who has probably done more to reduce the subject of vegetable dietetics to asystemthan any other individual,—though he makes much use ofallthe rest, especially the moral and medical,—appears to dwell with most interest on the physiological argument. This seems to be, with him, the strong-hold—the grand citadel. And it must be confessed that the point of defence is very strong indeed, as we shall see in the sequel.

If I have a favorite, with the rest, it is the moral argument, or perhaps a combination of this with the economical. But then I dwell on the latter with so much interest, chiefly on account of the former. I would give very little to be able to bring the world of mankind back to nature's true simplicity, if it were only to make them better and more perfect animals; though I know not but an attempt of this sort would be as truly laudable as the attempt so often made to improve the breed of our domestic animals. I suppose man, considered as a mere animal, is superior, in point of importance to all the others. But, after all, I would reform his dietetic habits principally to make him better, morally; to make him better, in the discharge of his varied duties to his fellow-beings and to God. I would elevate him, that he may become as truly god-like, or godly as he now too often is, by his unnatural habits, earthly or beastly. I would render him a rational being, fitted to fill the space which he appears to havebeen originally designed to fill—the gap in the great chain of being between the higher quadrupeds and the beings we are accustomed to regard as angelic. I would restore him to his true dignity. I would make him a child of God, and anheirof a glorious immortality.

But I now proceed to the discussion of the subject which I have assigned to this chapter.

There has been a time when the teeth and intestines of man were supposed to indicate the necessity of a mixed diet—a diet partly animal and partly vegetable. Four out of thirty-two teeth were found to resemble slightly, the teeth of carnivorous animals. In like manner, the length of the intestinal tube was thought to be midway between that of the flesh-eating, and that of the herb-eating quadrupeds. But, unfortunately for this mode of defending an animal diet, it has been found out that the fruit and vegetable-eating monkey race, and the herb-eating camel, have the said four-pointed teeth much more pointed than those of man and that the intestines, compared with the real length of the body, instead of assigning to man a middle position, would place him among the herbivorous animals. In short—for I certainly need not dwell on this part of my subject, after having adduced so fully the views of Prof. Lawrence and Baron Cuvier—there is no intelligent naturalist or comparative anatomist, at present, who attempts to resort for one moment to man's structure, in support of the hypothesis that he is a flesh-eater. None, so far as I know, will affirm, or at least with any show of reason maintain, that anatomy, so far as that goes, is infavor of flesh eating. We come, then, to another and more important division of our subject.

One of the advantages of vegetable-eaters over others, is in the superior appetite which they enjoy. There are many flesh-eaters who have what they call a good appetite. But I never knew a person of this description, who made the change from a mixed diet to one purely vegetable, who did not afterward acknowledge that he never once knew, while he was an eater of animal food, a truly perfect appetite. This testimony in favor of vegetable diet is positive; whereas that of the multitude, who have never made the change I speak of, but who are therefore the more ready to laugh at the conclusions, is merely negative.

A person of perfect appetite can eat at all times, and under all circumstances. He can eat of one thing or another, and in greater or less quantity. Were there no objections to it, he could make an entire meal of the coarsest and most indigestible substances; or, he could eat ten or fifteen times a day; or, he could eat a quantity at once which would astonish even a Siberian; or, on the contrary, he could abstain from food entirely, for a short time; and any of these without serious inconvenience. He would, indeed, feel a slight want of something (in the case of total abstinence), when the usual hour arrived for taking a meal; but the sensation is not an abiding one; when the hour has passed by, it entirely disappears. Nor is there ever, at least for a day or two of abstinence, that gnawing at the stomach, as some express it, which is so often felt by the flesh-eater and the devourer of other mixed and injurious dishesand which is so generally mistaken for true and genuine hunger.

I have said that the vegetable-eater finds no serious inconvenience from the quality or quantity of his food; but I mean to speak here of theimmediateeffects solely. No doubt every error of this sort produces mischief, sooner or later. The more perfect the appetite is, the greater should be our moral power of commanding it, and of controlling the quality and quantity of our food and drink, as well as the times and seasons of receiving it.

These statements, I am aware, are contrary to the received and current opinion; but that they are true, can be proved, not by one person merely,—though if that person were to be entirely relied on, his positive affirmation would outweigh a thousandnegativetestimonies,—but by many hundreds. It is more generally supposed that he who confines himself to a simple diet, soon brings his stomach into such a state that the slightest departure from his usual habits for once only, produces serious inconveniences; and this indeed is urged as an argument against simplicity itself. Yet, how strange! How much more natural to suppose that the more perfect the health of the stomach, the better it will bear, for a time, with slight or even serious departures from truth and nature! How much more natural to suppose that perfect health is the very best defence against all the causes which tend to invite or to provoke disease! And what it would be natural to infer, is proved by experience to be strictly true. The thorough-going vegetable-eater can make a meal for once, or perhaps feed for a day or so, on substances which would almost kill many others; and can do so withcomparative impunity. He can make a whole meal of cheese, cabbage, fried pudding, fried dough-nuts, etc., etc.; and if it be not in remarkable excess, he will feel no immediate inconvenience, unless from the mental conviction that he must pay the full penalty at some distant day.

I repeat it, the appetite of the vegetable-eater, if true to his principles, and temperate in regard to quantity, is always, at all moments of his life, perfect. To be sure, he is not alwayshungry. Hunger, indeed, as I have already intimated—what most people call hunger, a morbid sensation, or gnawing—is unknown to him. But there is scarce a moment of his life, at least, when he is awake, in which he could not enjoy the pleasures of eating, even the coarsest viands, with a high relish; provided, however, he knew it wasproperfor him to eat. Nor is his appetite fickle, demanding this or that particular article, and disconcerted if it cannot be obtained. It is satisfied with any thing to which the judgment directs; and though gratified, in a high degree, with dainties, when nothing better and more wholesome cannot be obtained, never demanding them in a peremptory manner.

The vegetable-eater has a more quiet, happy, and perfect digestion than the flesh-eater. On this point there has been much mistake, even among physiologists. Richerand and many others suppose that a degree of constitutional disturbance is indispensable during the process of digestion; and some have even said that the system was subjected at every meal—nay, at every healthy meal—to a species of miniature fever. The remarks of Richerand are as follows. I have slightly abridged them, but have not altered the sense:

"While the alimentary solution is going on, a slight shivering is felt; the pulse becomes quicker and more contracted; the vital power seems to forsake the other organs, to concentrate itself on that which is the seat of the digestive process. As the stomach empties itself, the shivering is followed by a gentle warmth; the pulse increases in fullness and frequency; and the insensible perspiration is augmented. Digestion brings on, therefore, a general action, analogous to a febrile paroxysm."

And what is it, indeed,buta febrile paroxysm? Nay, Richerand himself confirms this by adding, "this fever of digestion, noticed already by the ancients, is particularly observable in women of great sensibility." That is, the fever is more violent in proportion to the want of power in the person it attacks to resist its influence; just as it is with fever in all other circumstances, or when induced by any other causes.

But, can any one believe the Author of Nature has so made us, that in a steady and rational obedience to his laws, it is indispensable that we should be thrown into a fever three times a day, one thousand and ninety-five times in a year, and seventy-six thousand six hundred and fifty in seventy years? No wonder, if this were true, that the vitality of our organs was ordained to wear out soon; for we see by what means the result would be accomplished.

The fever, however, of which Richerand speaks, does very generally exist, because mankind very generally depart from nature and her laws. But it is not necessary. The simple vegetable-eater—if he lives right in all other respects—if he errs not as to quantity, knows nothing of it; nor should it be known by any body. Weshould leave it to the animals below man to err, in quantity and quality, to an excess which constitutes a surfeit or a fever, and causes fullness and drowsiness, and a recumbent posture. The self-styled lord of the animal world should rise superior to habits which have marked, in every age, certain orders of the lower animals.

But the chyle which is produced from vegetable aliment is better—all other things being equal—than that which is produced from any other food. For proof of this, we need but the testimony of Oliver and other physiologists. They tell us, unhesitatingly, that under the same circumstances, chyle which is formed from vegetables will be preserved from putrefaction many days longer—the consequence of greater purity and a more perfect vitality—than that which is formed from any admixture of animal food. Is it not, then, better for the purposes of health and longevity? Can it, indeed, be otherwise? I will say nothing at present, for want of space to devote to it, of the indications which are afforded by the other sensible properties of the chyle which is produced from vegetables. The single fact I have presented is enough on that point.

The best solids and fluids are produced by vegetable eating. On this single topic a volume might be written, without exhausting it, while I must confine myself to a page or two.

In the first place, it forms better bones and more solid muscles, and consequently gives to the frame greater solidity and strength. Compare, in evidence of the truth of this statement, the vegetable-eating millions of middle and southern Europe, with the other millions, who, supposed to be more fortunate, can get a little flesh or fishonce a day. Especially, make this comparison in Ireland, where the vegetable food selected is far from being of the first or best order; and whose sight is so obtuse as not to perceive the difference? I do not say, compare the enervated inhabitant of a hot climate, as Spain or Italy, with the inhabitant of England, or Scotland, or Russia, for that would be an unfair comparison, wholly so; but compare Italian with Italian, Frenchman with Frenchman, German with German, Scotchman with Scotchman, and Hibernian with Hibernian.

In like manner, compare the millions of Japanese of the interior, who subsist through life chiefly on rice, with the few millions of the coasts who eat a little fish with their rice. Make a similar comparison in China and in Hindostan. Notice, in particular, the puny Chinese, who live in southern China, on quite a large proportion of shell-fish, compared with the Chinese of the interior. Extend your observations to Hindostan. Do not talk of the effeminate habits and weak constitutions of the rice and curry eaters there—bad as the admixture of rice and curry may be—for that is to compare the Hindoo with other nations; but compare Hindoo with Hindoo, which is the only fair way. Compare the porters of the Mediterranean, both of Asia and Europe, who feed on bread and figs, and carry weights to the extent of eight hundred or one thousand pounds, with the porters who eat flesh, fish, and oil. Compare African with African, American Indian with American Indian; nay, even New Englander with New Englander; for we have a few here who are trained to vegetable eating. In short, go where you will, and institute a fair comparison, and the results will be, without a single exception, in favor of a diet exclusively vegetable. Itis necessary, however, in making the comparison, to placegoodvegetable food in opposition to good animal food; for no one will pretend that a diet of crude, miserable, or imperfect, or sickly vegetables will be as wholesome as one consisting of rich farinaceous articles and fruits; nor even as many kinds of plain meat.

The only instance which, on a proper comparison, will probably be adduced to prove the incorrectness of these views, will be that of a few tribes of American Indians, who, though they have extremely robust bodies, are eaters of much flesh. But they live also in the open air, and have many other good habits, and are healthy in spite of the inferiority of their diet. But perfect, physically, as they seem to be, and probably are, examine the vegetable-eaters among them, of the same tribe, and they will be found still more so.

In the next place, the fluids are all in a better and more healthy state. In proof of this, I might mention in the first place that superior agility, ease of motion, speed, and power of endurance which so distinguish vegetable-eaters, wherever a fair comparison is instituted. They possess a suppleness like that of youth, even long after what is called the juvenile period of life is passed over. They are often seen running and jumping, unless restrained by the arbitrary customs of society, in very advanced age. Their wounds heal with astonishing rapidity in as many days as weeks, or even months, in the latter case. All this could not happen, were there not a good state of the fluids of the system conjoined, to a happy state of the solids.

The vegetable-eater, if temperate in the use of his vegetables, and if all his other habits are good, will endure, better than the flesh-eater, the extremes of heatand cold. This power of endurance has ever been allowed to be a sure sign of a good state of health. The most vigorous man, as it is well known, will endure best both extremes of temperature. But it is a proof also of the greater purity of his solids and fluids.

The secretions and excretions of his body are in a better state; and this, again, proves that his blood and other fluids are healthy. He does not so readily perspire excessively as other men, neither is there any want of free and easy perspiration. Profuse sweating on every trifling exertion of the body or mind, is as much a disease as an habitually dry skin. But the vegetable-eater escapes both of these extremes. The saliva, the tears, the milk, the gastric juice, the bile, and the other secretions and excretions—particularly the dejections—are as they should be. Nay, the very exhalations of the lungs are purer, as is obvious from the breath. That of a vegetable-eater is perfectly sweet, while that of a flesh-eater is often as offensive as the smell of a charnel-house. This distinction is discernible even among the brute animals. Those which feed on grass, grain, etc., have a breath incomparably sweeter than those which prey on animals. Compare the camel, and horse, and cow, and sheep, and rabbit, with the tiger (if you choose to approach him), the wolf, the dog, the cat, and the hawk. One comparison will be sufficient; you will never forget it. But there is as much difference between the odor of the breath of a flesh-eating human being and a vegetable-eater, as between those of the dog and the lamb. This, however, is a secret to all but vegetable-eaters themselves, since none but they are so situated as to be able to make the comparison. But, betake yourself to mealy vegetables and fruits a fewyears, and live temperately on them, and then you will perceive the difference, especially in riding in a stage-coach. This, I confess, is rather a draw-back upon the felicity of vegetable-eaters; but it is some consolation to know what a mass of corruption we ourselves have escaped.

There is one more secretion to which I wish to direct your attention, which is, the fat or oil. The man who lives rightly, and rejects animal food among the rest, will never be overburdened with fat. He will neither be too corpulent nor too lean. Both these conditions are conditions of disease, though, as a general rule, corpulence is most to be dreaded; it is, at least, the most disgusting. Fat, I repeat it, is a secretion. The cells in which it is deposited serve for relieving the system of many of the crudities and abuses, not to say poisons, which are poured into it—cheated; as it were, in some degree into the blood, secreted into the fat cells, and buried in the fat to be out of the way, and where they can do but little mischief. Yet, even here they are not wholly harmless. The fat man is almost always more exposed to disease, and tosevereepidemic disease in particular, than the lean man. Let us leave it to the swine and other kindred quadrupeds, to dispose of gross half poisonous matter, by converting it into, or burying it in fat; let us employ our vital forces and energies in something better. Above all, let us not descend to swallow, as many have been inclined to do, besides the ancient Israelites, this gross secretion, and reduce ourselves to the painful necessity of carrying about, from day to day, a huge mass of double-refined disease, pillaged from the foulest and filthiest of animals.

Vegetable-eaters—especially if they avoid condiments,as well as flesh and fish—are not apt to be thirsty. It is a common opinion among the laboring portion of the community, that they who perspire freely, must drink freely. And yet I have known one or two hard laborers who were accustomed to sweat profusely and freely, who hardly ever drank any thing, except a little tea or milk at their meals, and yet were remarkably strong and healthy, and attained to a great age. One of this description (Frederick Lord, of Hartford, Conn.), lived to about the age of eighty-five. How the system is supplied, in such cases, with fluid, I do not know; but I know it is not necessary to drink perpetually for the purpose; for if but one healthy man can dispense with drinking, others may. The truth is, we seldom drink from real thirst. We drink chiefly either from habit, or because we have created a morbid or diseased thirst by improper food or drink, among which animal food is pretty conspicuous.

I have intimated that, in order to escape thirst, the vegetable-eater must abstain also from condiments. This he will be apt to do. It is he who eats flesh and fish, and drinks something besides water, who feels such an imperious necessity for condiments. The vegetable and milk eater, and water-drinker, do not need them.

It is in this view, that the vegetable system lies at the foundation of all reform in the matter of temperance. So long as the use of animal food is undisturbed and its lawfulness unquestioned, all our efforts to heal the maladies of society are superficial. The wound is not yet probed to the bottom. But, renounce animal food, restore us to our proper condition, and feed us on milk and farinaceous articles, and our fondness for excitement and our hankering for exciting drinks and condimentswill, in a few generations, die away. Animal food is a root of all evil, so far as temperance is concerned, in its most popular and restricted sense.

The pure vegetable-eaters, especially those who are trained as such, seldom drink at all. Some use a little water with their meals, and a few drink occasionally between them, especially if they labor much in the open air, and perspire freely. Some taste nothing in the form of drink for months, unless we call the abundant juices of apples and other fruits, and milk, etc., by that name—of which, by the way, they are exceedingly fond. The reason is, they are seldom thirsty. Dr. Lambe, of London, doubts whether man is naturally a drinking animal; but I do not carry the matter so far. Still I believe that ninety-nine hundredths of the drink which is used,asnow used, does more harm than good.

He who avoids flesh and fish, escapes much of that languor and faintness, at particular hours, which others feel. He has usually a clear and quiet head in the morning. He is ready, and willing, and glad to rise in due season; and his morning feelings are apt to last all day. He has none of that faintness between his meals which many have, and which tempts thousands to luncheons, drams, tobacco, snuff, and opium, and ultimately destroys so much health and life. The truth is, that vegetable food is not only more quiet and unstimulating than any other, but it holds out longer also. I know the contrary of this is the general belief; but it is not well founded. Animal food stimulates most, and as the stimulus goes off soon, we are liable to feel dull after it, and to fancy we need the stimulus of drink or something else to keep us up till the arrival of another meal. And, having acquired a habit of relying on our food tostimulate us immediately, much more than to give us real, lasting, permanent strength, it is no wonder we feel, for a time, a faintness if we discontinue its use. This only shows the power of habit, and the over-stimulating character of our accustomed food. Nor does the simple vegetable-eater suffer, during the spring, as other people say they do. All is cheerful and happy with him, even then. Nor, lastly, is he subject to hypochondria or depression of spirits. He is always lively and cheerful; and all with him is bright and happy. As it has been expressed elsewhere, with the truly temperate man it is "morning all day."

The system of diet in question, greatly improves, exalts, and perfects the senses. The sight, smell, and taste are rendered greatly superior by it. The difference in favor of the hearing and the touch may not be so obvious; nevertheless, it is believed to be considerable. But the change in the other senses—the first three which I have named—even when we reform as late as at thirty-five or forty, is wonderful. I do not wish to encourage, by this, a delay of the work of reformation; we can never begin it too early.

Vegetable diet favors beauty of form and feature. The forms of the natives of some of the South Sea Islands, to say nothing of their features, are exceedingly fine. They are tall and well proportioned. So it is with the Japanese and Chinese, especially of the interior, where they subsist almost wholly on rice and fruits. The Japanese are the finest men, physically speaking, in Asia. The New Hollanders, on the contrary, who live almost wholly on flesh and fish, are among the most meagre and ugly of the human race, if we except the flesh-eating savages of the north, and theGreenlanders and Laplanders. In short, the principle I have here advanced will hold, as ageneral rule, I believe, other things being equal, throughout the world. If it be asked whether I would exalt beauty and symmetry into virtues, I will only say that they are not without their use in a virtuous people; and I look forward to a period in the world's history, when all will be comparatively well formed and beautiful. Beauty is exceedingly influential, as every one must have observed who has been long in the world; at least, if he has had his eyes open. And it is probably right that it should be so. Our beauty is almost as much within our control, as a race, as our conduct.

A vegetable diet, moreover, promotes and preserves a clearness and a generally healthful state of the mental faculties. I believe that much of the moral as well as intellectual error in the world, arises from a state of mind which is produced by the introduction of improper liquids and solids into the stomach, or, at least, by their application to the nervous system. Be this as it may, however, there is nothing better for the brain than a temperate diet of well-selected vegetables, with water for drink. This Sir Isaac Newton and hundreds of others could abundantly attest.

It also favors an evenness and tranquillity of temper, which is of almost infinite value. The most fiery and vindictive have been enabled, by this means, when all other means had failed, to transform themselves into rational beings, and to become, in this very respect, patterns to those around them. If this were its only advantage, in a physiological point of view, it would be of more value than worlds. It favors, too, simplicity of character. It makes us, in the language of the Bible,to remain, or to become, as little children, and it preserves our juvenile character and habits through life, and gives us a green old age.

Finally and lastly, it gives us an independence of external things and circumstances, that can never be attained without it. In vain may we resort to early discipline and correct education—in vain to moral and religious training—in vain, I had almost said, to the promises and threatenings of heaven itself, so long as we continue the use of food so unnatural to man as the flesh of animals, with the condiments and sauces, and improper drinks which follow in its train. Our hope, under God, is, in no small degree, on a radical change in man's dietetic habits—in a return to that simple path of truth and nature, from which, in most civilized countries, those who have the pecuniary means of doing it have unwisely departed.

If perfect health is the best preventive and security against disease, and if a well-selected and properly administered vegetable diet is best calculated to promote and preserve that perfect health, then this part of the subject—what I have ventured to call the medical argument—is at once disposed of. The superiority of the diet I recommend is established beyond the possibility of debate. Now that this is the case—namely, that this diet is best calculated to promote perfect health—I have no doubt. For the sake of others, however, it may be well to adduce a few facts, and present a few brief considerations.

It is now pretty generally known, that Howard, the philanthropist, was, for about forty years a vegetable-eater,subsisting for much of this time on bread and tea, and that he went through every form of exposure to disease, contagious and non-contagious, perfectly unharmed. And had it not been for other physical errors than those which pertain to diet, I know of no reason why his life might not have been preserved many years longer—perhaps to this time.

Rev. Josiah Brewer, late a missionary in Smyrna, was very much exposed to disease, and, like Mr. Howard, to the plague itself; and yet I am not aware that he ever had a single sick day as the consequence of his exposure. I do not know with certainty that he abstains entirely from flesh meat, but he is said to be rigidly temperate in other respects.

Those who have read Rush's Inquiries and other writings, are aware that he was very much exposed to the yellow fever in Philadelphia, during the years in which it prevailed there. Now, there is great reason for believing that he owed his exemption from the disease, in part, at least, to his great temperance.

Mr. James, a teacher in Liberia, in Africa, had abstained for a few years from animal food, prior to his going out to Africa. Immediately after his arrival there, and during the sickly season, one of his companions who went out with him, died of the fever. Mr. James was attacked slightly, but recovered.

Another vegetable-eater—the Rev. Mr. Crocker—went out to a sickly part of Africa some years since, and remained at his station a long time in perfect health, while many of his friends sickened or died. At length, however, he fell.

Gen. Thomas Sheldon, of this state, a vegetable-eater, spent several years in the most sickly parts of theSouthern United States, with an entire immunity from disease; and he gives it as his opinion that it is no matter where we are, so that our dietetic and other habits are correct.

Mr. G. McElroy, of Kentucky, spent several months of the most sickly season in the most unhealthy parts of Africa, in the year 1835, and yet enjoyed the best of health the whole time. While there and on his passage home, he abstained wholly from animal food, living on rice and other farinaceous vegetables and fruits.

In view of these facts and many others, Mr. Graham remarks: "Under a proper regimen our enterprising young men of New England may go to New Orleans or Liberia, or any where else they choose, and stay as long as they choose, and yet enjoy good health." And there is no doubt he is right.

But it is hardly worth while to cite single facts in proof of a point of this kind. There is abundant testimony to be had, going to show that a vegetable diet is a security against disease, especially against epidemics, whether in the form of a mere influenza or malignant fever. Nay, there is reason to believe that a person living according toallthe Creator's laws, physical and moral, could hardly receive or communicate disease of any kind. How could a person in perfect health, and obeying to an iota all the laws of health—how could he contract disease? What would there be in his system which could furnish a nidus for its reception?

I am well aware that not a few people suppose the most healthy are as much exposed to disease as others, and that there are some who even suppose they are much more so. "Death delights in a shining mark," or something to this effect, is a maxim which has probablyhad its origin in the error to which I have adverted. To the same source may be traced the strange opinion that a fatal or malignant disease makes its first and most desperate attacks upon the healthy and the robust. The fact is—and this explains the whole riddle—those who are regarded, by the superficial and short-sighted in this matter, as the most healthy and robust, are usually persons whose unhealthy habits have already sown the seeds of disease; and nothing is wanting but the usual circumstances of epidemics to rouse them into action. More than all this, these strong-looking but inwardly-diseased persons are almost sure to die whenever disease does attack them, simply on account of the previous abuses of their constitutions.

During the prevalence of the cholera in New York, about the year 1832, all the Grahamites, as they were called, who had for some time abstained from animal food—and their number was quite respectable—and who persevered in it, either wholly escaped the disease, or had it very lightly; and this, too, notwithstanding a large proportion of them were very much exposed to its attacks, living in the parts of the city where it most prevailed, or in families where others were dying almost daily. This could not be the result of mere accident; it is morally impossible.

But flesh-eaters—admitting the flesh were wholesome—are not only much more liable to contract disease, but if they contract it, to suffer more severely than others. There is yet another important consideration which belongs to the medical argument. Animal food is much more liable than vegetable food, to those changes or conditions which we call poisonous, and which are always, in a greater or less degree, the sources of disease;it is also more liable to poisonous mixtures or adulterations.

It is true, that in the present state of the arts, and of agriculture and civic life generally, vegetables themselves are sometimes the sources of disease. I refer not to the spurred rye and other substances, which occasionally find their way into our fields and get mixed with our grains, etc., and which are known to be very active poisons,—so much as to the acrid or otherwise improper juices which are formed by forced vegetation, especially about cities, whether by means of hot-beds, green-houses, or new, strong, or highly-concentrated manures. I refer also to the crude, unripe, and imperfect fruits and other things with which our markets are filed now-a-days; and especially todecayingfruits and vegetables. But I cannot enlarge; a volume would be too little to do this part of the subject justice. Nothing is more wanted than light on this subject, and a consequent reform in our fashionable agriculture and horticulture.

And yet, although I admit, most cheerfully, the danger we are in of contracting disease by using diseased vegetables, the danger is neither so frequent nor so imminent, in proportion to the quantity of it consumed, as from animal food. Let us briefly take a view of the facts.

Milk, in its nature, approaches nearest to the line of the vegetable kingdom, and is therefore, in my view, the least objectionable form of animal food. I am even ready to admit that for persons affected with certain forms of chronic disease, and for all children, milk is excellent. And yet, excellent as it is, it is very liable to be injurious. We are told, by the most respectablemedical men of France, that all the cows about Paris have tubercles (the seeds or beginning of consumption) in their lungs which is probably owing to the unnatural state in which they are kept, as regards the kind, and quantity, and hours of receiving their food; and especially as regards air, exercise, and water. Cows cannot be healthy, nor any other domestic animals, any more than men, when long subjected to the unnatural and unhealthy influences of bad air, want of exercise, etc. Hence, then, most of our cows about our towns and cities must be diseased, in a greater or less degree—if not with consumption, with something else. And of course their milk must be diseased—not, perhaps, as much as their blood and flesh, but more or less so. But if milk is diseased, the butter and cheese made from it must be diseased also.

But milk is sometimes diseased through the vegetables which are eaten by the cow. Every one knows how readily the sensible properties of certain acrid plants are perceived in the milk. Hence as I have elsewhere intimated, we are doubly exposed to danger from eating animal food; first, from the diseases of the animal itself, and secondly, from the diseases which are liable to be induced upon us by the vegetables they use, some of which are not poisonous to them, but are so to us. So that, in avoiding animal food, we escape at least a part of the danger.

Besides the general fact, that almost all medical and dietetic writers object to fat, and to butter among the rest, as difficult of digestion and tending to cutaneous and other diseases,—and besides the general admission in society at large that it makes the skin "break out,"—it must be obvious that it is liable to retain, in a greateror less degree, all the poisonous properties which existed in the milk from which it was made. Next to fat pork, butter seems to me one of the worst things that ever entered a human stomach; and if it will not, like pork, quite cause the leprosy, it will cause almost every other skin disease which is known.

Cheese is often poisoned now-a-days by design. I do not mean to say that the act of poisoning is accompanied by malice toward mankind; far from it. It is added to color it, as in the form of anatto; or to give it freshness and tenderness, as in the case of arsenic.[21]

Eggs, when not fresh, are more or less liable to disease. I might even say more. When not fresh, theyarediseased. On this point we have the testimony of Drs. Willich and Dunglison. The truth is, that the yolk of the egg has a strong tendency to decomposition, and this decomposing or putrefying processbeginslong before it is perceived, or even suspected, by most people. There is much reason for believing that a large proportion of the eggs eaten in civic life,—except when we keep the poultry ourselves,—are, when used, more or less in a state of decomposition. And yet, into how many hundred forms of food do they enter in fashionable life, or in truth, in almost every condition of society! The French cooks are said to have six hundred and eighty-five methods of cooking the egg, including all the various sorts of pastry, etc., of which it forms a component part.

One of the grand objections against animal food, of almost all sorts, is, that it tends with such comparativerapidity to decomposition. Such is at least the case with eggs, flesh, and fish of every kind. The usual way of preventing the decomposition is by processes scarcely less hurtful—by the addition of salt, pyroligneous acid, saltpetre, lime, etc. These, to be sure, prevent putrefaction; but they render every thing to which they are applied, unless it is the egg, the more indigestible.

It is a strange taste in mankind, by the way, which leads them to prefer things in a state of incipient decomposition. And yet such a taste certainly prevails widely. Many like the flesh beaten; hence the origin of the cruel practice of the East of whipping animals to death.[22]And most persons like fresh meat kept till it begins to betender; that is, begins to putrefy. So most persons like fermented beer better than that which is unfermented, although fermentation is a step toward putrefaction; and they like vinegar, too, which is also far advanced in the same road.

That diseased food causes diseases in the persons who use it, needs not, one would think, a single testimony; and yet, I will name a few.

Dr. Paris, speaking of fish, says,—"It is not improbable that certain cutaneous diseases may be produced, or at least aggravated by such diet." Dr. Dunglison says, bacon and cured meats are often poisonous. He speaks of the poisonous tendency of eggs, and says that allmadedishes are more or less "rebellious." In Aurillac, in France, not many years since, fifteen or sixteen persons were attacked with symptoms of cholera after eating the milk of a certain goat. The goat died with cholera about twenty-four hours after, and two men, noless eminent than Professors Orfila and Marc, gave it as their undoubted opinion that the cholera symptoms alluded to, were caused by the milk. I have myself known oysters at certain times and seasons to produce the same symptoms. During the progress of a mortal disease among the poultry on Edisto Island, S. C., in 1837, all the dogs and vultures that tasted of the flesh of the dead poultry sickened and died. Chrisiston mentions an instance in which five persons were poisoned by eating beef; and Dunglison one in which fourteen persons were made sick, and some died, from eating the meat of a calf. Between the years 1793 and 1827, it is on record that there were in the kingdom of Wurtemberg alone, no less than two hundred and thirty-four cases of poisoning, and one hundred and ten deaths, from eating sausages. But I need not multiply this sort of evidence, the world abounds with it; though for one person who is poisoned so much as to be made sick immediately, hundreds perhaps are only slightly affected; and the punishment may seem to be deferred for many years.

The truth, in short, is, that every fashionable process of fattening and even of domesticating animals, induces disease; and as most of the animals we use for food are domesticated or fattened, or both, it follows that most of our animal food, whether milk, butter, cheese, eggs, or flesh, is diseased food, and must inevitably, sooner or later, induce disease in those who receive it. Those which are most fattened are the worst, of course; as the hog, the goose, the sheep, and the ox. The more the animal is removed from a natural state, in fattening, the more does the fat accumulate, and the more it is diseased. Hence the complaints against every form ofanimal oil or fat, in every age, by men who, notwithstanding their complaints, for the most part, continue to set mankind an example of its use.

Let me here introduce a single paragraph from Dr. Cheyne, which is very much to my present purpose.

"About London, we can scarce have any but crammed poultry or stall-fed butchers' meat. It were sufficient to disgust the stoutest stomach to see the foul, gross, and nasty manner in which, and the fetid, putrid, and unwholesome materialswithwhich they are fed. Perpetual foulness and cramming, gross food and nastiness, we know, will putrefy the juices, and corrupt the muscular substance of human creatures—and sure they can do no less in brute animals—and thus make our food poison. The same may be said of hot-beds, and forcing plants and vegetables. The only way of having sound and healthful animals, is to leave them to their own natural liberty in the free air, and their own proper element, with plenty of food and due cleanliness; and a shelter from the injuries of the weather, whenever they have a mind to retire to it."

The argument then is, that, for healthy adults at least, a well-selected vegetable diet, other things being equal, is a preventive of disease, and a security against its violence, should it attack us, in a far greater degree than a diet which includes animal food in any of its numerous forms. It will either prevent the common diseases of childhood, including those which are deemed contagious, or render their attacks extremely mild: it will either prevent or mitigate the symptoms of the severe diseases of adults, not excepting malignant fevers, small-pox, plague, etc.; and it will either prevent suchdiseases as cancer, gout, epilepsy, scrofula, and consumption, or prolong life under them.

Who that has ever thought of the condition of our domestic animals, especially about towns and cities—their want of good air, abundant exercise, good water, and natural food, to say nothing of the butter-cup and the other poisonous products of over-stimulating or fresh manures which they sometimes eat—has not been astonished to find so little disease among us as there actually is? Animal food, in its best state, is a great deal more stimulating and heating to the system than vegetable food;—but how much more injurious is it made, in the circumstances in which most animals are placed? Do we believe that even a New Zealand cannibal would willingly eat flesh, if he knew it was from an animal that when killed was laboring under a load of liver complaint, gout, consumption, or fever? And yet, such is the condition of most of the animals we slay for food. They would often die of their diseases if we did not put the knife to their throats to prevent it.

One more consideration. If the exclusive use of vegetable food will prevent a multitude of the worst and most incurable diseases to which human nature, in other circumstances, seems liable; if it will modify the diseases which a mixed diet, or absolute intemperance, or gluttony had induced,—by what rule can we limit its influence? How know we that what is so efficacious in regard to the larger diseases, will not be equally so in the case of all smaller ones? And why, then, may not its universal adoption, after a few generations, banish disease entirely from the world? Every person of common observation, knows that, as a general rule, they who approach the nearest to a pure vegetable andwater diet, are most exempt from disease, and the longest-lived and most happy. How, then, can it otherwise happen than that a still closer approximation will afford a greater exemption still, and so on indefinitely? At what point of an approach toward such diet and regimen, and toward perfect health at the same time, is it that we stop, and more temperance still will injure us? In short, where do we cross the line?

I have dwelt at such length on the physiological and medical arguments in defence of the vegetable system, that I must compress my remaining views into the smallest space possible; especially those which relate to its political, national, or general advantages.

Political economists tell us that the produce of an acre of land in wheat, corn, potatoes, and other vegetables, and in fruits, will sustain animal life sixteen times as long as when the produce of the same acre is converted into flesh, by feeding and fattening animals upon it.

But, if we admit that this estimate is too high, and if the real difference is only eight to one, instead of sixteen to one, the results may perhaps surprise us; and if we have not done it before, may lead us to reflection. Let us see what some of them are.

The people of the United States are believed to eat, upon the average, an amount of animal food equal at least to one whole meal once a day, and those of Great Britain one in two days. But taking this estimate to be correct, Great Britain, by substituting vegetable for animal food, might sustain forty-nine instead of twenty-one millions of inhabitants, and the United States sixty-six millions instead of twenty; and this, too, in their presentcomfort, and without clearing up any more new land. Here, then, we are consuming that unnecessarily—if animal food is unnecessary—which would sustain seventy-nine millions of human beings in life, health, and happiness.

Now, if life is a blessing at all—if it is a blessing to twenty-two millions in Great Britain, and twenty millions in the United States—then to add to this population an increase of seventy-nine millions, would be to increase, in the same proportion, the aggregate of human happiness. And if, in addition to this, we admit the very generally received principle, that there is a tendency, from the nature of things, in the population of any country, to keep up with the means of support, we, of Great Britain and America, keep down, at the present moment, by flesh-eating, sixty-three millions of inhabitants.

We do not destroy them, in the full sense of the term, it is true, for they never had an existence. But we prevent their coming into the possession of a joyous and happy existence; and though we have no name for it, is it not a crime? What! no crime for thirty-five millions of people to prevent and preclude the existence of sixty-three millions?

Back to Index Next