Loring Moody to Frederick Douglass, January 21, 1853
Letter from Loring Moody.
FRIEND DOUGLASS:—"One sinner destroyeth much good." And a single intelligent proslavery colored man, is a greater hinderance to the causes of freedom in this country, than the opposition of almost any number of white men.
You may be aware that for some time past I have been in the service of the "Chaplin Committee." In the prosecution of my mission, I came to this city on Friday, last week, and obtaind permission of Rev. Mr. Adams, a colored preacher of the Baptist church, in Baker street, to occupy a few moments on Sunday evening in presenting the case of Chaplin's [illegible]
This I did very briefly. I remarked among other things, that the act with which Chaplin was charged, was a Christian act, and only that; that it is only lawful to profess Christianity in this country. But if anyone undertakes to be a Christian—to carry its golden law of love into practice, so as to reach the case, and meet the wants of the poorest and the most needy in the land, he will soon find himself in the grip of the Marshal and his posse, and must look through the grated window of a [?], perhaps, for the remainder of his life. So that each one must answer to God and his own conscience, whether or not, he is ready to make the sacrifices, and incur the "pains and penalties" of being a Christian in the United States of America.
When I sat down, Mr. Adams arose and said, "With many of the sentiments expressed by the friend, we fully agree; but we thought at one time we should be obliged to speak for ourselves. By the admission on the part of the speaker—that every man must judge of his own duty—has relieved us of the necessity. But, friends, you all know very well what mysteries are on the subject of going into States and STEALING SLAVES—so that I need not now repeat them."
I hardly need say I was shocked to hear a colored preacher stand up before a colored audience, and characterize obedience to the
clearest and most unmistakeable precepts of the religion he professes to teach as stealing. It is bad enough for a white man to
"Torture the pages of the hallowed Bible,
To sanction crime, and robbery and blood;
And in oppression's hateful service, libel
Both man and God."
But for a colored man—one of the prescribed and enslaved race to do it, and thus virtually consent to the enslavement of both himself and race—the guilt is doubly damning. Should every colored man in the country be engaged "heart and soul" in the cause of emancipation, the abolitionists would still have obstacles enough to encounter in the selfishness, spite, and hatred of slaveholders and the white abettors. But, when to these is added the indifference, or opposition of any portion of the colored race, their position is rendered extremely ambarassing. And yet, the reason in this case, is not that this man is willing to be a slave himself, or desires enslavement of other; but, like thousands of others, in our day, he is trying "so to serve God as not to offend the devil." He has, as I understand, an interest in some property in Kentucky, and is, moreover, preaching a part of the time for a good salary in Louisville; and if he should say anything in favor of liberty, slavery would get mad at him; and knowing, as everybody else does, that liberty has no
great power in the nation, and therefore very little to be feared, he makes himself just as bad as the majority of white men, and speaks against freedom, and for slavery. Our colored friends here, however, are growing more and more dissatisfied with him; and he will find before long that he "cannot serve God and Mammon." And he must soon make his election, and swear allegiance to one or the other. I think every colored man, occupying so prominent and influential a position, who is so false to the best interests of his race, as to play into the hands of slaveholders and their Northern apologists and abettors, should be exposed; and this consideration must be my apology for taking so much notice of this affair.
I am happy, however, in being able to state, that the individual here spoken of, by no means represents our colored friends in this city. As a class I have found them intelligent; and not only deeply sympathyzing in the anti-slavery movement, but earnestly engaged in carrying out measures for their moral, mental, and social elevation. On Wednesday evening I attended one of their religious meetings, and found them so much alive to the interests of their race, that they made hatred to slavery a prominent condition of church-fellowship. On Friday evening I attended a meeting in the same place, and spent some little time in reviewing the position of Mr. Adams. He was present
and I invited him to correct any mis-statements or erroneous impressions which I might make in regard to him. He took the platform, and instead of meeting the issue before us, went into a detailed account of the conversation which took place between us, in relation to my occupying his meeting house—a conversation, in which neither his views nor mine, on the subject of slavery, or of aiding fugitives, transpired; and which, therefore, had nothing to do with the point under consideration. At the close of his rehersal of our dialogue, I asked him if he did not call it stealing to aid a fugitive slave?—He replied that he did. The officiating clergyman asked if he would render any aid to a fugitive slave, should one apply to him for succor? This question he declined answering. And yet he wishes it distinctly understood that he is one of the slave's best friends. The slave may so understand him if he can.
I will add not another word of censure, but leave this unfortunate brother to the tribunal of his own conscience.
Yours,
LORING MOODY
CINCINNATI, Jan, 21, 1853