"The
Rights of Animals"[i]
[From the
Herald of Freedom of Oct. 31, 1845; Miscellaneous Writings, 339-40]
A book review, but one of the
earliest and clearest manifestos for animal rights in North America.
An author in Dublin, gave me, in
1840, a good-sized volume of the above title, which alone has merit enought, I
thought - if the book had no other, to entitle it and its author to
consideration and gratitude.[iii] We hear of the "rights of Man." I
wish we heard more of them than we do - and could see them observed as well as
talked of. But who ever though of an animal's rights - the rights of a brute.
We hear it spoken of as man's duty to be kind to the brutes - but never of a
brute's right to just treatment. But why has not a brute rights. as well as man?
What is the foundation of human
rights, that is not foundation, for animals rights also? A man has
rights - and they are important to him becuase their observance is necessary to
his happiness, and their violation hurts him. He has right to personal liberty.
It is pleasant to him - permanently pleasant and good. It is therefore his
right. And every creature - or I will call it, rather, every existence, (for
whether created or not, they certainly exist, they are) every existence, that
is capable of enjoying or suffering, has its rights, and just mankind will
regard them. And regard them as rights. The horse has rights. The dog. The cat,
and the rat even. Real rights. And these rights are sacred. They are not to be
invaded. Mankind are to study the happiness of all beings, so far as they are
connected with them. How far it is to be carried, depends upon how the most
perfect good will can carry it. Farther than it can go -it is under no
obligation to go. Does any body seriously think it right, to trifle with animal
happiness and animal suffering? they do trifle with them, and talk about
dominion over them being given to man. If this dominion involve ill treatment -
it was a bad gift, whoever gave it, in my opinion. They talk of dominion - and
found upon it the right of capricious treatment. But that any body thinks it
right to injure the brute, I doubt. Whoever will do it - is liable to extend
the like injury to mankind. "Dominion" is claimed over portion of
mankind as well as brute-kind, and by "divine right" too. More of
this hereafter.
[i] The volume in question is presumably William
Hamilton Drummons, The Rights of Animals and Man's
Obligation to Treat them with Humanity
(1838).