2 Forging a Nation

THE AMERICAN JEWISH EXPERIENCE DURING THE REVOLUTION AND THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD, 1776–1820

Throughout premodern Jewish history, powerful autocratic governments—especially those with an established religion or national church—often treated Jews poorly, relegating them to status as second-class citizens, scapegoating them, insisting they were instigators of various social ills, and, in many cases, evoking antisemitic imagery that led to occupational restrictions, special “Jew taxes,” ghettoization, and violent oppression.

In the newly formed United States of America, unlike in many parts of the Old World, Jews benefited from the European Enlightenment ideal of natural right, upon which the Declaration of Independence was based. According to natural right theory, each and every individual, regardless of his (less often her) religious beliefs or group status, enjoyed “certain inalienable rights” that government could not deny. With the founding of the United States, American Jews looked forward to protections for their life and liberty, however these would eventually be defined by the government.

Yet American Jews at the time of independence still wrestled with competing political allegiances. Although most joined the Revolution and backed the new experiment in democracy, others remained loyal to the British Crown, supporting the colonies’ chief trading partner, Great Britain, in the hope that war could be avoided. These Jewish loyalists wanted to protect their livelihoods. They believed that through negotiation and compromise on the tax issues that triggered the conflict a peaceful resolution could ultimately be obtained. When the war ended with a patriot victory, many such loyalists fled the United States for England or one of its other colonies.

When the Continental Congress’s first attempt to create a federal government contract, the Articles of Confederation, failed to provide the nation with the political might necessary for effective governance, many of the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia, in 1787, to draft a more comprehensive constitution. The Constitutional Convention, conducted in secret over a nine-month period, produced a document aimed at strengthening the federal government and safeguarding the rights of the states while protecting citizens from the threat of governmental tyranny. The framers of the U.S. Constitution resolved the question of excessive federal authority by creating an elaborate system of governmental checks and balances. They divided the federal government into three distinct branches, apportioned authority among them, limited the power of the federal government by granting wide discretion to state governments, and encouraged state governments, in turn, to transfer power to the local level. Most important for American Jews, the Constitution promised explicit protection of religious freedom.

As citizens, Jews adapted to life in the new United States. In their workplaces, still dominated by jobs focused on trade and commerce, Jews forged business relationships that recognized the nation’s new political independence and the end of British colonial rule. Within their religious worlds, Jews reached out to their Christian neighbors to support Jewish institutions. And, as European Jews contemplated immigration to the new nation, they learned about what adaptations would be necessary for them to experience a meaningful Jewish life.

IMMIGRATION AND ADAPTATION

2.01—JOSEPH SALVADOR TO HIS COUSIN EMANUEL MENDES DA COSTA, DESCRIBING AMERICA, JANUARY 22, 1785

In a letter to Emanuel Mendes da Costa (1717–1791), Joseph Salvador (1716–1786) recounted vivid details about life in America. Salvador, who immigrated to the United States at age sixty-eight in 1784, was the father-in-law and uncle of Francis Salvador (1747–1776), the first Jewish casualty in the American Revolution. His experience in his new home proved quite trying, as his letter indicates. For Salvador, an accomplished scientist who was reared as an aristocratic British subject, life in the fledgling United States of America was difficult. Writing to da Costa, a scientist of note in Great Britain, Salvador described how living in South Carolina affected his everyday experiences, his social status, as well as his interest in the sciences.

My dear friend and Cousin,

Sir,

I have long since desired to write to you, but have been so distressed and ill that I could not do it.

I have suffer[e]d every want and, having no one till within this month to write for me, have been forc[e]d to write too much myself; my eyes and hands are very much impair[e]d, and I am entirely depriv[e]d of doing anything by night as candles are not in use in this country, nor does anyone know how to make a pen; few write or read.

I am now in a wild country, have but one servant, and, tho they speak English, we frequently don[’]t understand each other. The inhabitants are descendants of the wild Irish and their ignorance [is] amazing; they have all the bad Spanish customs but none of that nation[’]s good qualities. They are as poor as rats, proud as dons. They will not work nor permit their families to serve; They are naked and famish[e]d and immensely lazy. They have no religion or morals, the few that have any adopt the patriarchal sistem. They have no belief in Christ, little in Judaism or a future state. Their minds are wholly bent on their horses whom they prize more than their wives and families. They hate society and pass their days in the woods or, loitering about, they drink hard. Rum is their deity; they ruin their healths and are short livers, always happy when they can do any ill natur[e]d thing and molest their neighbours. The better sort of people are here very docile and tractable and don[’]t want [for] good sense, but [are] totally unimproved. They wish good government, but dare not oppose the others. In short there is no power in government; all goes by chance and time must bring amendment. They now are like a set of Tartars; there are above 50,000 whites in the district. Scarce fifty houses, the rest are cabins or huts. They are daily extending backwards in the country and always moving; not a village and scarce two houses together.

[ . . . ]

The soil is excellent and would produce anything, but the inhabitants will cultivate nothing. They have all fruits, but bad—peaches, pears, mulberryes, plums, grapes, but none good, they being ungrafted, bad strawberries, some water melons, gourds and pumpkins, and middling melons, some other southern fruits, and greens, pineapples, oranges, and limes from abroad, but not good; they have apples from the north but no cherries or currants. They are very scarce of greens, mostly kidney beans, cabbage and lettuce, some pease, but rare and bad; small greens in general are all wanting, some bad asparagus and artichokes. Their wheat is good and Indian corn plenty. I hope to get some hops and beer; we have deer skins and bear skins. Tobacco and indigo maintain this country, the first is grown common and is as good as Virginia, the indigo is ordinary but will mend. In the low land vast quantities of fine rice is made. There is little or no credit or money in the country. I would continue my narrative, but have no time. The waggons are upon departure and there is no other conveyance. I will beg you to wait on the president of our society, wishing my compliments. Tell him I have met with nothing worthy his attention in my passage, and have been very ill, but hope to be soon able to communicate some matters of these inland countries which are little known in Europe; that about this date last year, being ill att Cross Creek, I saw a small bearded comet. Having no instrument in the place, all I could do was to observe her course with the eye. She seem[e]d to me to be about eighteen degrees to the southward of Capricorn; I don[’]t know the name of the constellation, knowing little astronomy and particularly of the southern heavens. Her course seem[e]d to me near W. S. W., going to the sun. The [comet] every day gain[e]d that way, set sooner, and about the thirty was not visible to the eye, setting nearly with the sun, but more to the southward. Perhaps she grew visible att sun rise; I doubt it as she declin[e]d so much to the southward. In June we had the hottest day known here; it is said the thermometer reached 107 in the shadow. I went into the air and felt as if warm water was thrown on me, and all agreed in the coolest places our blood and pulses were above fever heat for three hours; in eight hours after it was cold. There was frost last winter and this has been very cold, frequently freezing all liquids in my room but spirits, and close by large wood fires. Few such days are in Eng[lan]d.

I can [write] no more on these subjects. . . .

On natural history, I hope soon to write to you; there seems to be less than one would expect.

My love to Jos[hua] and Judy [presumably the author’s son-in-law and daughter] and communicate this to them, my service to all friends. I am

dear sir

Y[ou]r. cousin and humble servant

Joseph Salvador

Coroneka 22 Jan[uar]y 1785

Source: Cecil Roth, “A Description of America,” in Jacob R. Marcus, ed., American Jewish Archives 17, no. 1 (April 1965): 29–32.

2.02—REBECCA SAMUEL TO HER PARENTS IN HAMBURG, GERMANY, DESCRIBING HER EXPERIENCES IN VIRGINIA, JANUARY 12, 1791

Rebecca Alexander Samuel, a young mother who immigrated with her husband to Petersburg, Virginia, from Hamburg, Germany, had many experiences similar to those of Joseph Salvador. According to Samuel, there was no real Jewish life in Virginia. Yiddish speaking, and traditional in her religious observance, she laments these circumstances in a letter to her parents in Hamburg. Yet Samuel also details aspects of American life that she enjoyed, such as the possibility of earning a good living and her community’s lack of a rabbi, an absence of authority that actually allowed Jews in America to practice their religion without fear of excommunication.

Petersburg, January 12, 1791, Wednesday, 8th [7th?] Shebat, 5551.

Dear and Worthy Parents:

I received your dear letter with much pleasure and therefrom understand that you are in good health, thank God, and that made us especially happy. The same is not lacking with us—may we live to be a hundred years. Amen.

[ . . . ]

You write me that Mr. Jacob Renner’s son Reuben is in Philadelphia and that he will come to us. People will not advise him to come to Virginia. When the Jews of Philadelphia or New York hear the name Virginia, they get nasty. And they are not wrong! It won’t do for a Jew. In the first place it is an unhealthful district, and we are only human. God forbid, if anything should happen to us, where would we be thrown? There is no cemetery in the whole of Virginia. In Richmond, which is twenty-two miles from here, there is a Jewish community consisting of two quorums [twenty men], and the two cannot muster a quarter [quorum when needed?].

You cannot imagine what kind of Jews they have here [in Virginia]. They were all German itinerants who made a living by begging in Germany. They came to America during the war, as soldiers, and now they can’t recognize themselves.

One can make a good living here, and all live at peace. Anyone can do what he wants. There is no rabbi in all of America to excommunicate anyone. This is a blessing here; Jew and Gentile are as one. There is no galut [“exile,” rejection of Jews] here. In New York and Philadelphia there is more galut. The reason is that there are too many German Gentiles and Jews there. The German Gentiles cannot forsake their anti-Jewish prejudice; and the German Jews cannot forsake their disgraceful conduct; and that’s what makes the galut.

[Rebecca Samuel]

Source: As printed in AJ, 51–52. MS-451, Henry Joseph Collection of Gratz Papers, AJA.

GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, AND CIVIC STATUS

2.03—FRANCIS SALVADOR TO SOUTH CAROLINA CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM H. DRAYTON, REPORTING LOCAL MILITIA ACTIVITY AGAINST NATIVE AMERICANS AND LOYALISTS, JULY 18 AND 19, 1776

In a July 18, 1776, letter to South Carolina’s Chief Justice William H. Drayton (1742–1779), American Jewish revolutionary soldier Francis Salvador recounted vivid and dramatic details of a frontline battle between South Carolina troops and a group of Cherokees aligned with the British. This document captures the depth of American Jewish commitment to the Revolution and the degree to which Jews were welcomed into military service. While Salvador, raised in an affluent and well-known Spanish-Portuguese family in England, represented an American Jewish elite, responses to him in life and death reveal a profound willingness by senior revolutionary leaders to embrace Jews as fellow patriots.

Dear Sir:

. . . . You would have been surprised to have seen the change in this country two days after you left me [June 29th, at my plantation, Coronaca]. On Monday morning one of Capt. [Aaron] Smith’s sons came to my house with two of his fingers shot off and gave an account of the shocking catastrophe at his father’s. . . .

I immediately galloped [twenty-eight miles] to Major [Andrew] Williamson’s to inform him but found another of Smith’s sons there, who had made his escape and alarmed that settlement. The whole country was flying—some to make forts, others as low as Orangeburgh [over halfway to Charlestown].

Williamson was employed night and day sending expresses [couriers] to raise the militia, but the panic was so great that the Wednesday following, the Major and myself marched to the late Capt. Smith’s with only forty men. The next day we were joined by forty more and have been gradually increasing ever since, tho’ all the men in the country were loth to turn out till they had procured some kind of fancied security for their families. However, we had last night 500 men, but have not been joined by any from the other side of the [Saluda] River. I rode there last Saturday and found Col. Williams and Lisles [Lisle] and two companies from Col. Richardson’s regiment, amounting to 430 men.

They were attacked on [early] Monday morning, July 15th, by Indians and Scopholites [Tories and partisans], but repulsed them, taking thirteen white men prisoners. The Indians fled the moment day appeared.

I will not trouble you with more particulars, as Major Williamson will send a circumstantial account to his Excellency [John Rutledge, President of South Carolina].

I am afraid the burthen of the war will fall on this regiment, and that the people over the [Saluda] River [to the north] will do nothing. They grumble at being commanded by a Major; and, I fear, if they join us at all, which I doubt, they will be very apt to prejudice the service by altercations about command. I cannot help saying that if Williamson is fit to conduct such an expedition, he certainly ought to have a much higher rank than any of these chaps, who don’t object to his person but his rank. I likewise think it an omission that the colonels on the other side the River have no written orders to put themselves, or their men, under his command.

On the last accounts from town [Charlestown]—that [Robert] Cuningham and his companions [suspected Tories] were set at liberty—we were very near having a mutiny in camp. And it [this release] is really a measure which, though certainly intended for the best, [is] very alarming to all ranks of people. The ignorant look upon it as turning their enemies loose on their backs in the day of their distress. And the sensible part consider it as a dangerous exercise of a dispensing power, assumed contrary to the express determination of [the Provincial] Congress and a corroborating resolve of the succeeding House of Assembly. . . .

Our men seem spirited and very much exasperated against our enemies. They are all displeased with the people over the River for granting quarter to their prisoners, and declare they will grant none either to Indians or white men who join them. We have just received an account that two of the Cherokees’ head warriors were killed in the late skirmish at Lindley’s Fort.

19th July.

. . . . We have just heard from over the River that the white people in general [the Tories] had quitted the Indians after the repulse at Lindley’s and were delivering themselves up to Col. Liles [Lisle]. He has sent all these to Ninety Six jail [a trade outpost at “location marker ninety-six”] against whom there is proof of having been in the action.

I hope you will pardon the freedom with which I express my sentiments, but I look upon it as an advantage to men in power to be truly informed of the people’s situation and disposition. This must plead my excuse, and believe me to be, with great respect, dear sir,

Your most obedient humble servant,

Francis Salvador

P.S. We, this day, increased to 600, all from the same regiment. Capt. [James] McCall, with twenty men, was sent by Major Williamson to the Cherokees at Seneca [Essenecca] to make prisoners of some white men [Tories], by the encouragement of some Indians who had been at the Major’s. When the detachment got near, the Indians came out to meet them, spoke friendly to them, and invited the captain, lieutenant, and another man to sup with them, leaving three of their own people in their room. And, in a few hours after, in the night, the Indians returned and suddenly attacked the detachment which fled as fast as possible. They are all returned but the captain and six men.

This happened immediately [before July 1st] before Smith’s family was cut off, who lost five negro men, himself, wife, and five children [Three of these five were later found alive]. . . .

Source: “Jews and the American Revolution: A Bicentennial Documentary,” in Jacob R. Marcus, ed., American Jewish Archives 27, no. 2 (Nov. 1975): 125–28.

2.04—MARYLAND CONSTITUTION, ARTICLES 33, 35, AND 55, RESTRICTING OFFICEHOLDERS TO CHRISTIANS, NOVEMBER 11, 1776

The issuance of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, did not lead to the immediate political enfranchisement of American Jews. Just as various colonies offered differing levels of civil equality to Jews in the prerevolutionary period, the newly organized states worked independently, and at their own pace, toward achieving the new nation’s promise of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In Maryland, delegates to a November 1776 state constitutional convention in Annapolis issued a Declaration of Rights that removed the privileged position of the Church of England as well as granted Roman Catholics the right to worship as their faith required. Yet Maryland’s framers did not permit the state’s Jewish citizens to hold public office; this right only came after the legislature passed its “Jew Bill” in 1826. In the state of New York, where Jews were both more numerous and engaged in the important economies of trade and commerce, delegates to the July 1776 and April 1777 state constitutional conventions offered full civil equality to their Jewish residents—the first of the original thirteen states to do so.

XXXIII. That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons, professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice; unless, under colour of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others, in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any particular place of worship, or any particular ministry; yet the legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion; leaving to each individual the power of appointing the payment over of the money, collected from him, to the support of any particular place of worship or minister, or for the benefit of the poor of his own denomination, or the poor in general of any particular country. . . .

XXXV. That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State, and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this convention, or the legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion. . . .

LV. That every person, appointed to any office of profit or trust, shall, before he enters on the execution thereof, take the following oath, to wit: “I[,] A. B. [generic initials, equivalent to “John Doe”], do swear, that I do not hold myself bound in allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland”; and shall also subscribe a declaration of his belief in the Christian religion.

Source: As printed in JAW, 95–96. From Francis Newton Thorpe, comp. and ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, etc. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1909), 3:1686, 1689–90, 1700.

2.05—NEW YORK CONSTITUTION, ARTICLES 35, 38, AND 39, MAKING NEW YORK THE FIRST STATE TO EMANCIPATE JEWS, APRIL 20, 1777

XXXV . . . That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected. . . .

XXXVIII. And whereas we are required, by the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind, this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, within this State, to all mankind: Provided, that the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.

XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or military office or place within this State.

Source: As printed in JAW, 96–97. From Francis Newton Thorpe, comp. and ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, etc. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1909), 5:2635–37.

2.06—ISAAC TOURO, A LOYALIST, TO BRITISH GENERAL GUY CARLETON, REQUESTING FUNDS TO RELOCATE TO JAMAICA, DECEMBER 12, 1782

For American Jews loyal to the British, political opposition to the American Revolution often wrought physical dislocation as patriot troops advanced. For the Dutch-born Isaac Touro (1738–1783), the retreat of British troops first forced a move from his home in Providence, Rhode Island, where Touro served as religious leader of the renowned congregation Yeshuat Israel (later known as the Touro Synagogue), to British-held New York City. In 1782, Touro, unable to support himself, appealed to the British government for financial help through Gen. Guy Carleton so that he could return with his family to the British-ruled island of Jamaica, where he had resided prior to his immigration to Newport.

To His Excellency, Sir Guy Carleton, K. B. [Knight of the Bath], General and Commander in Chief, etc., etc., etc.:

The petition of Isaac Touro, late rector of the Jewish synagogue at Rhode Island, humbly sheweth:

That from the distresses which your petitioner sufferd from persecution for his attachment to [His Majesty’s] government, and coming with [H]is Majesty’s troops from Rhode Island to this city [New York], he was so reduced in his circumstances, that had it not been for the humane interference of General [William] Tryon, General [John] Marsh, and other respectable persons, he must have sunk under the weight of his affliction and distress;

That from their kind patronage, the bounty of government has been extended to him, and he has made shift to support himself and family;

That the petitioner is now anxiously desirous of removing himself and family to the island of Jamaica, but is incompetent to defray the expences of his passage, etc.:

That the only resource he has left him is Your Excellency’s humanity and benevolince, in the hope that you will grant him an advance of one twelvemonth’s allowance, which would effectually enable him to accomplish his wishes.

Your petitioner therefore humbly prays that Your Excellency will be favorably pleased to order a twelve months’ allowance to be paid to him, to enable him to remove with his family to the island of Jamaica.

And, as in duty bound, he will every pray, etc., etc.

Isaac Touro

New York, the 12th December, 1782.

Source: “Jews and the American Revolution: A Bicentennial Documentary,” in Jacob R. Marcus, ed., American Jewish Archives 27, no. 2 (Nov. 1975): 189–90.

2.07—JONAS PHILLIPS, ASKING THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO EMANCIPATE PENNSYLVANIA’S JEWS, SEPTEMBER 7, 1787

In 1781, all thirteen states had ratified the Articles of Confederation, but many citizens found this agreement inadequate. Those leaders who favored a stronger national government began meeting in Philadelphia in February 1787 to frame a new constitution for the young nation. As this new constitution took shape, Americans wondered how the document would treat a range of controversial issues.

Many American Jews hoped the new constitution would safeguard the right of religious liberty in the republic. In a famous letter addressed to the delegates of the convention, Jonas Phillips (1736–1803) of Philadelphia urged the framers to maintain respect for freedom of conscience and to confer “equal footing” under the law to all religions, including Judaism.

Phillips, no doubt, was pleased with the proposed constitution that emerged from the convention. In Article VI, the document forbade the use of “a religious test as a requirement for holding a governmental position.” Those who feared a strong centralized government still worried that the new constitution granted too much authority to the federal government, so ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were proposed by Congress in 1789 and ratified by the states in 1791. These amendments guaranteed the rights of individuals to liberty and property. The First Amendment prohibited the government from establishing a state religion and from interfering with the free exercise of religion.

Sires:

With leave and submission I address myself to those in whom there is wisdom, understanding, and knowledge; they are the honourable personages appointed and made overseers of a part of the terrestrial globe of the earth, namely the 13 United States of America in convention assembled, the Lord preserve them, amen.

I, the subscriber, being one of the people called Jews, of the city of Philadelphia, a people scattered and dispersed among all nations do behold with concern that among the laws in the constitution of Pennsylvania, there is a clause, sect. 10 to viz., “I do believe in one God the creatur and governor of the universe and rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testiment to be given by divine inspiration.” To swear and believe that the New Testiment was given by divine inspiration is absolutely against the religious principle of a Jew, and is against his conscience to take any such oath. By the above law a Jew is deprived of holding any publick office or place of government which is a contradictory to the [Pennsylvania] Bill of Right, sect. 2 viz.:

That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience and understanding, and that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship or [accept a] creed, or [erect or] support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to, or against his own free will and consent. Nor can any man who acknowledges the being of a God be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship. And that no authority can or ought to be vested in or assumed by any power whatever that shall in any case interfere, or in any manner controul the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship. . . .

It is well known among all the citizens of the 13 United States that the Jews have been true and faithful Whigs, and during the late contest with England they have been foremost in aiding and assisting the states with their lifes and fortunes. They have supported the cause, have bravely fought and bled for liberty which they can not enjoy.

Therefore if the honourable convention shall in their wisdom think fit and alter the said oath and leave out the words to viz.: “and I do acknowledge the Scripture of the New Testiment to be given by divine inspiration,” then the Israelites will think themself happy to live under a government where all religious societys are on an equal footing. I solicit this favour for myself, my children, and posterity, and for the benefit of all the Israelites through the 13 United States of America.

My prayers is unto the Lord. May the people of this states rise up as a great and young lion; may they prevail against their enemies; may the degrees of honour of his Excellency, the president of the convention, George Washington, be exhalted and raise up. May everyone speak of his glorious exploits.

May God prolong his days among us in this land of liberty. May he lead the armies against his enemys as he has done hereuntofore. May God extend peace unto the United States. May they get up to the highest prosperitys. May God extend peace to them and their seed after them so long as the sun and moon endureth; and may the almighty God of our father Abraham, Isaac and Jacob indue [sic] this noble assembly with wisdom, judgment and unanimity in their counsells; and may they have the satisfaction to see that their present toil and labour for the wellfair of the United States may be approved of through all the world and particular by the United States of America, is the ardent prayer of sires.

Your most devoted obed. servant,

Jonas Phillips

Philadelphia, 24th Ellul, 5547, or Sep’r 7th 1787.

Source: As printed in JAW, 99–100. Reprinted with permission of AJHS, from PAJHS 2 (1894): 108–10.

2.08—ADDRESS OF THE NEWPORT CONGREGATION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AUGUST 17, 1790

In one of the most important and famous exchanges in American Jewish history, the leadership of Newport, Rhode Island’s congregation wrote a letter to President George Washington on the occasion of his visit to their city. Washington’s reply, in which he repeats the Newport congregation’s call for “a government which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance,” solidified the civic standing of the nation’s Jewish community as the president assured his readers that “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.” The free exercise of religion is not a national indulgence, Washington proclaims, but an “inherent natural right.”

Sir, Permit the Children of the Stock of Abraham to approach you with the most cordial affection and esteem for your person and merits—and to join with our fellow-citizens in welcoming you to New Port.

With pleasure we reflect on those days—those days of difficulty and danger, when the God of Israel, who delivered David from the peril of the sword—shielded your head in the day of battle:—and we rejoice to think that the same Spirit, who rested in the bosom of the greatly beloved Daniel, enabling him to preside over the Provinces of the Babylonish Empire, rests, and ever will rest upon you, enabling you to discharge the arduous duties of Chief Magistrate in these States.

Deprived as we have hitherto been of the invaluable rights of free citizens, we now, (with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty Disposer of all events) behold a Government (erected by the Majesty of the People) a Government which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance—but generously affording to All liberty of conscience, and immunities of citizenship—deeming every one, of whatever nation, tongue, or language equal parts of the great governmental machine. This so ample and extensive federal union whose basis is Philanthropy, mutual confidence, and public virtue, we cannot but acknowledge to be the work of the Great God, who ruleth in the armies of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the Earth, doing whatsoever seemeth him good.

For all the blessings of civil and religious liberty which we enjoy under an equal and benign administration we desire to send up our thanks to the Antient of days, the great Preserver of Men—beseeching him that the Angel who conducted our forefathers through the wilderness into the promised land, may graciously conduct you through all the dangers and difficulties of this mortal life—and when like Joshua full of days, and full of honor, you are gathered to your Fathers, may you be admitted into the heavenly Paradise to partake of the water of life and the tree of immortality.

Done and signed by order of the Hebrew Congregation in New Port, Rhode Island, August 17th, 1790.

Moses Sexias [sic] Warden.

Source: As printed in DHJ, 79–80. Washington Papers, 17–18; Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

2.09—PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON TO THE NEWPORT CONGREGATION, 1790

Gentlemen:

While I receive with much satisfaction your address replete with expressions of affection and esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to New Port from all classes of Citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security.

If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good government to become a great and happy people.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy, a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity.

May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig-tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.

May the Father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

G. Washington.

Source: As printed in DHJ, 80–81. Washington Papers, 19–20; Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

2.10—ANONYMOUS REPLY TO JAMES RIVINGTON’S ANTISEMITIC PREFACE IN The Democrat, DECEMBER 17, 1795

In 1795, newspaper publisher James Rivington (1724–1802) wrote an antisemitic preface to Henry James Pye’s (1745–1813) novel The Democrat. Rivington, a staunch loyalist who elected to remain in New York after the defeat of the British, called Jews “the tribe of Shylock” and blamed them for what he considered the failings of the new nation. In response, Thomas Greenleaf (1755–1798), publisher of the New York Journal, printed two replies that challenged Rivington’s prejudiced views. An abbreviated version of one of these replies, with the anonymous signature “Slow and Easy,” is included here.

a. To the WRITER of the PREFACE to DEMOCRAT

It is a good maxim not to ridicule religion, or the natural defects of the human body. The first shews the depravity of the head, the latter the malignity of the heart. If this observation is just, we may conclude from the extraordinary preface, lately published by J-m-s R-v--gt-n to a novel entitled [The] Democrat, that the writer’s head is as destitute of every liberal sentiment, as his heart is deficient in charity and compassion for the defects of his fellow-creatures, had such defects really existed.

I shall endeavour, in the course of a few observations, to place the preface in its proper point of view, but being unaccustomed to writing, the public are not to expect well-turned periods or elegance of diction, but in lieu thereof, I will endeavour to give them facts in plain and unadorned language; in doing this, I am in some measure under the disagreeable necessity of using a mode similar to that of the author of the preface, not indeed with a view of wounding the feelings of any person whatever, but merely to expose the absurdity of the practice itself. I shall only take notice of such part of the preface as respects the Democrats, of whose Society I am a member, and leave those whom it concerns to notice the rest.

Speaking of the Democratic Society, it has the following words—“This itinerant gang will be easily known by their phisiognomy,” &c. The public will doubtless admire your sagacity, in discovering the Democrats to be a wandering gang. An abusive stile, Sir, is ever a very bad one; the word gang is made use of to denote ruffians and highway men.—Let us try how those elegant expressions will sound, when applied to other Societies—For instance, to the St. George’s, St. Andrew’s, St. Patrick, Tammany, Black Friars, or any other in this city. I believe, Sir, they will not be in a hurry to erect a statue to your memory, for the politeness of the expression, or the honour you meant to confer on them—“They all seem, like their Vice-President, of the tribe of Shylock.”—Really, Sir, this is extremely sarcastic; the wits of the age ought to have your name wrote in letter of gold, for this brilliant proof of your satire. Perhaps some readers of your preface may be ignorant of the source from whence this pretty story took its rise; you ought to have the goodness to inform them, that by turning to [Ellis] Farneworth[’s The Life of ] Pope Sixtus the Vth, page 401, they would find it recorded at large; but this story, as erroneously represented by Shakespeare, could not be applied to the Vice-President, as it would not by any means suit his liberality of sentiment and general character. . . . If, by the word Shylock, you mean a Jew, from my knowledge of the Vice-President, I dare say he would think himself honoured by the appellation, Judaism being his religious profession, as Democracy is his political creed.

It is an old remark, that the great Author of the Universe has so beautifully variegated his works, that scarce any two things appear alike. To your inventive genius it was left to discover, that all the members of the largest Society in the state, look exactly like their Vice-President—Go on, Sir, and convince the Philosophers of the age, that you have no equal.

With your permission I will make use of an old adage—It must be a bad rule that won’t work both ways—let us try it. Your most gracious sovereign, for instance, was unfortunately inflicted with insanity; by a parity of reasoning, all his liege subjects must be mad men. . . .

Your enemies, as well as your friends, do you justice, and say you are no changeling; that you have acted, and still do act, consistently from your appointment of printer to his most gracious majesty to the present time. Courtier like, you have feared and flattered your superiors, and represented all those in the most ludicrous and false colouring, from whom you supposed you had nothing to fear.—While the British fleets and armies were wantonly burning our towns, and committing scenes that will scarcely at this day be believed, did not your zeal then, and does it not still continue to represent them as the bravest and most gallant people on the globe terrestrial? Did you not, on every occasion, represent the worthy and brave General Washington, and his army of heroes, as banditti, that could never stand before British troops? Did you not turn their well fought battles into so many defeats, and represent them as retreating with dismay over the Alleghany Mountains? . . .—I am bold to say, Sir, that the whole of the Democratic Society, from the President to the Door Keeper individually, would be pleased with an opportunity to serve you precisely in the same way: but rest assured, merit like yours will never fail to meet its due reward.

If I had a thousand mouths of brass, they would be inadequate to trumpet forth the many exploits you have made the bravest and most magnanimous people on the globe terrestrial perform, and it would require as many more to represent the dastardly and dreadful situation in which you have uniformly placed the Americans, and do still some of their best friends.

To conclude, Sir, I deny the allegations as set forth in your preface, respecting the Democratic Society and their Vice-President, as untrue, but say the facts contained herein are true, and leave the decision to the impartial public.

SLOW and EASY.

Source: As printed in DHJ, 86–88. From the Argus, or Greenleaf’s New Daily Advertiser, December 17, 1795.

2.11—SAMPSON SIMSON’S HEBREW ORATION AT COLUMBIA COLLEGE, 1800

As early as the eighteenth century, Columbia College offered courses in Hebrew so that students could properly understand the Holy Scriptures in their original language. For Sampson Simson (1781–1857), generally believed to be Columbia’s first Jewish graduate, the school’s interest in the study of this classical language translated into an opportunity to offer a commencement address in Hebrew. Simson’s speech, delivered in 1800, and reputedly written on his behalf by Gershom Seixas, a cantor and a trustee of Columbia College, depicted the Jew as an American patriot and concomitantly provided his listeners with a formal attempt to reconstruct the history of American Jewry.

Although not accustomed to speak in public, I rise with perfect confidence that you will kindly consent to listen to me and I earnestly crave your indulgence for any error I may commit in the course of my address. And if I have found grace in your eyes I shall essay to speak concerning my brethren residing in this land. It is now more than 150 years, since Israelites first came to this country, at the time when this province was under the dominion of Holland, but until now no one of them or their children has on a similar occasion been permitted thus to address a word in public, and I am a descendant of one of those who were among the first settlers here. It is known to you, that at the time when this province, then called New Amsterdam, was exchanged for the colony of Surinam, all the inhabitants remaining here came under the dominion of England. Among them were the Jews who until then could only congregate for worship in private rooms in their own dwellings until the year 5490 [1730] (according as we reckon in this city of New York). It was then that our regular Synagogue was built, where we have been serving Almighty God unmolested for upwards of seventy years. During this long period the Jews have not been as numerous as the other sects, for only few in number they came hither; but now, behold the Lord has enlarged and increased in this and in all the other provinces of these United States the descendants of those few families that came from Holland in the year 5420 [1660], one hundred and forty years ago. Among these was one man with his wife, one son and four daughters. The father and son died soon after they had reached this place, leaving the wife with her four daughters and behold they have exalted themselves in this city, and from them sprang forth many of the Congregation now known as “Shearith Israel.” Afterwards, in the year 1696, there came from France some families by the way of England, who brought with them letters of denization from the king, constituting them freemen throughout all the provinces under his dominion. And in the year 1776 at the time when the people of this country stood up like one man in the cause of liberty and independence every Israelite that was among them rose up likewise and united in their efforts to promote the Country’s peace & prosperity. And even now we endeavor to sustain the government of these provinces, free of any allegiance to any other whatsoever, monarchial or republican, and we exclaim in the language of King David, “Rid us, (O Lord!) from the hand of the children of the stranger, whose mouth speaketh vanity and whose right hand is the right hand of falsehood.”

Source: PAJHS 27 (1920): 373–75.

2.12—ISAAC HARBY TO JAMES MONROE ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND THE RECALL OF MORDECAI NOAH FROM THE U.S. CONSULATE IN TUNIS, 1816

Mordecai Manuel Noah (1785–1851) gained widespread attention when he was appointed U.S. consul to the Kingdom of Tunis in 1813. In this role, Noah was charged with a secret mission of ransoming Americans held hostage in nearby Algeria. When he was unable to free all the prisoners and accused of overpaying ransom for the two he did free, President James Madison and Secretary of State James Monroe decided to relieve him of his duties. Since they did not want to expose the undercover operation, Madison and Monroe argued instead that Noah’s work on behalf of Morocco’s Jewish community compromised his diplomatic professionalism. Monroe’s letter of discharge pointed out that had the U.S. government realized Noah was a Jew, he would never have been appointed because a Jewish diplomat could not effectively serve in a Muslim country. Noah shared his correspondence and documents concerning the secret Algiers mission with his friend and colleague Isaac Harby (1788–1828), a Jewish resident of Charleston, who promptly composed a letter of complaint to Monroe. Harby was appalled to read that an American Jew had been disqualified from representing his country on account of his religion, and minced no words in reminding Secretary Monroe that freedom of religion was, for all Americans, a “principle of equal inalienable, constitutional Rights.”

Office of the Southern Patriot

Charleston May 13th 1816

Honble James Monroe

Dr. Sir

I have just finished the perusal of a pamphlet, submitted to my inspection and impartial Judgment, by Mr. Noah, our late consul at Tunis. To say that the explanation & documents exhibited in this pamphlet, were Satisfactory, to my mind, of the zeal & ability with which Mr. Noah discharged his official duties, might possibly be attributed to the friendship contracted between us, during a long acquaintance. But You, Sir, who can look upon him from higher and more impartial ground; you, whose candour as a man blends so happily with that strict justice which should guide your public actions, can judge of Mr. Noah’s conduct with cooler and steadier calculation, than myself. On this impartiallity, this purity of mind that has ever distinguished your official life, Mr. Noah must rely for a full justification. His friends are also willing to rely upon it.

When this gentleman was first recommended to the regard of government, he was supported by many worthy & influencial men. These men must think it due to themselves, to know how he has realized the expectations of his friends. May I add, Sir, that I think it due to yourself, to the Country, to the Constitution, to enquire into the nature of the cause why he has been so abruptly recalled?

. . . But, I do think, that the successful termination of Mr. Noah’s negociation, generally; his zeal and industry for the interests of his countrymen; his manners so well adapted to win his way among strangers; these, taken together, should at least have entitled him to a full and impartial hearing, before your sudden fiat had issued, to his injury & to the astonishment of his friends.

. . . The first sentence in your letter of recal to Mr. Noah, contains these words: “It was not known at the time of your appointment as consul for Tunis, that the religion which you professed would form any obstacle to the exercise of your functions:”!! It was this sentiment, Sir, which immediately fixed and rivetted my attention, my astonishment. I would ask, since it was not then known, whether it has been since discovered, that Religion disqualifies a man from the exercise of his political functions? Or has this doctrine ever been known, since the first hour of the establishment of our invaluable Constitution? Had such a sentiment proceeded from an intollerant mind, had it been uttered by the minister of any other cabinet than that of America, we should not have wondered. But, proceeding from You, from a component part of the Executive of the United States, from you, one of the soundest constitutional lawyers in the country, surely we might wonder; and in respect for you, attribute the expression to haste and inconsiderateness rather than to principle. To principle! God forbid. When, in the convention of Virginia (a theatre filled with talents) You and other true and liberal statesmen, guarranty’d perfect freedom of Religion, then it was you acted upon principle. When the constitution of the United States declares that Liberty shall be secured to every citizen, this is principle. The principle of equality of rights, is inherent in every letter, and breathes its spirit throughout the whole mass of our laws. This salutary principle, which forever destroys the union of Church & State, that bane of political happiness, that insult to Heaven, mingles with the feelings, and morals, and education of the American people. An objection, on the score of Religion, would sound to them “most monstrous and unnatural.” They Know no Religious distinctions. One great character of Citizenship alone prevails.

“spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus,

mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet.”

[the spirit within nourishes, and the mind that is diffused throughout the living parts of nature activates the whole mass and mingles with the vast body of the universe (Virgil)]

It is upon the principle, not of toleration (for man has no power to tolerate Religion, that is a concern between Man and his maker) but upon the principle of equal inalienable, constitutional Rights, that we see Jews appointed to offices, that we see them elected in our State Representation, & that, in proportion as their talents and their influence can bear them through, we see their mingling in the honours of their country. They are by no means to be considered as a Religious sect, tolerated by the government; they constitute a portion of the People. They are, in every respect, woven in and compacted with the citizens of the Republic. Quakers and Catholics; Episcopalians and Presbyterians, Baptists and Jews, all constitute one great political family. “Simplex duntaxat et unum” [each as good and as much intended as another (Horace)]. In this light, every wise Statesman must regard them. I do therefore appeal to you, not only as a Philanthropist, but as a politician; not only as a just man, but as the Secretary of State to this free government, to erase the sentence in your letter above alluded to, strike it from the records of your office. It can only remain to your own injury, and to the reproach of the liberal character of our institutions.

[ . . . ]

With respect to any reparation (not on account of Mr. Noah, he is only secondary in the affair) for the sake of a large portion of the American people, from whom such a transaction should be for ever buried, for the sake of Justice, of the constitution, of your own cause, I certainly must leave every thing remedial, to your well known candour and your better Judgement: suggesting, however, at the same time, that an appointment to an equal rank, or at least some public and honourable mention of Mr. Noah, would be highly satisfactory to his feelings, to the feelings of all his co-religionaires and, I doubt not, to the feelings of your bosom.

What I have written, I trust you will regard (as I sincerely assure you it is meant to be) moderate, friendly and respectful. No Government, no officer of government, however highly endowed, but in the course of a long political carreer may commit an error. To remedy it, is in this case, left to your liberallity and justice.

Believe me Sir, to be with the highest respect,

Your obt. Servant

Isaac Harby

Source: RG 59, General Records of the Department of State, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.

2.13—THOMAS JEFFERSON TO MORDECAI NOAH ON RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE, MAY 28, 1818

After Mordecai Noah’s diplomatic career ended, he was invited to deliver a speech dedicating New York’s Shearith Israel synagogue building. His 1818 address was widely published, earning a response from Thomas Jefferson, who emphasized his unswerving commitment to religious toleration. Two years later, Jacob de la Motta (1789–1845), a physician in South Carolina and then Georgia and a Jewish communal leader, delivered a dedicatory address at the consecration of Mikvah Israel’s new synagogue building in Savannah, Georgia. De la Motta sent copies of his address to both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. In his reply, printed here, Jefferson reaffirmed his commitment to religious pluralism.

Sir,—

I thank you for the Discourse on the consecration of the Synagogue in your city, with which you have been pleased to favor me. I have read it with pleasure and instruction, having learnt from it some valuable facts in Jewish history which I did not know before. Your sect, by its sufferings, has furnished a remarkable proof of the universal spirit of religious intolerance inherent in every sect, disclaimed by all while feeble, and practised by all when in power. Our laws have applied the only antidote to this vice, protecting our religious, as they do our civil rights, by putting all on an equal footing. But more remains to be done. For although we are free by the law, we are not so in practice. Public opinion erects itself into an Inquisition, and exercises its office with as much fanaticism as fans the flames of an Auto da fé. The prejudice still scowling on your section of our religion, altho’ the elder one, cannot be unfelt by yourselves. It is to be hoped that individual dispositions will at length mould themselves to the model of the law, and consider the moral basis on which all our religions rest, as the rallying point which unites them in a common interest; while the peculiar dogmas branching from it are the exclusive concern of the respective sects embracing them, and no rightful subject of notice to any other. Public opinion needs reformation on this point, which would have the further happy effect of doing away the hypocritical maxim of “intus ut lubet, foris ut moris” [“inside as it pleases, outside as maintained according to custom”]. Nothing I think would be so likely to effect this as to your sect particularly as the more careful attention to education, which you recommend, and which placing it’s [sic] members on the equal and commanding benches of science, will exhibit them as equal objects of respect and favor. I should not do full justice to the merits of your discourse, were I not, in addition to that of its matter, to express my consideration of it as a fine specimen of style and composition. I salute you with great respect and esteem.

Th. Jefferson

Source: Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

2.14—THOMAS JEFFERSON TO JACOB DE LA MOTTA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1820

Monticello

Th. Jefferson returns his thanks to Dr. de la Motta for the eloquent discourse on the Consecration of the Synagogue of Savannah which he has been so kind as to send him. It excites in him the gratifying reflection that his own country has been the first to prove to the world two truths, the most salutary to human society, that man can govern himself, and that religious freedom is the most effectual anodyne against religious dissension: the maxim of civil government being reversed in that of religion, where it’s [sic] true form is “divided we stand, united we fall.” He is happy in the restoration, of the Jews particularly, to their social rights, & hopes they will be seen taking their seats on the benches of science, as preparatory to their doing the same at the board of government. He salutes Dr. de la Motta with sentiments of great respect.

Source: Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

2.15—THE FIRST FORM OF THE “JEW BILL,” 1819

With the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 and formal passage of the Bill of Rights in 1791, Congress was forbidden from passing any law that infringed on religious liberties. Yet that rule did not apply to state governments, which were free to limit the rights of religious minorities. For many Jews in America, civil restrictions continued long after the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified. A number of the original thirteen states continued to administer a religious test, or oath, which effectively prohibited Jews from holding state office or participating in the state’s governmental machine. Thus, Jews obtained political equality through a protracted effort—a struggle that had to be fought on a state-by-state basis. Perhaps the best-known example of this fight for equality took place in Maryland in the legislative battle over the adoption of a “Jew Bill.”

WHEREAS, It is the acknowledged right of all men to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. And whereas, it is declared by the thirty-sixth section of the bill of rights of this state, “That the manner of administering an oath to any person ought to be such as those of the religious persuasion, profession, or denomination of which such person is one, generally esteem the most effectual confirmation by the attestation of the divine Being. And whereas, religious tests for civil employment, though intended as a barrier against the depraved, frequently operate as a restraint upon the conscientious; and as the constitution of the United States requires no religious qualifications for civil office, Therefore,

Sec. 1. Be it enacted, By the General Assembly of Maryland, That no religious test, declaration or subscription of opinion as to religion, shall be required from any person of the sect called Jews, as a qualification to hold or exercise any office or employment of profit or trust in this state.

Sec. 2. And be it enacted, That every oath to be administered to any person of the sect of people called Jews, shall be administered on the five books of Moses, agreeably to the religious education of that people, and not otherwise.

Sec. 3. And be it enacted, That if this act shall be confirmed by the General Assembly, after the next election of delegates, in the first session after such new election, as the constitution and form of government direct; that in such case, this act and the alterations and amendments of the constitution and form of government therein contained, shall be taken and considered, and shall constitute and be valid as part of the said constitution and form of government, to all intents and purposes, any thing in the declaration of rights, constitution and form of government contained, to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sec. 4. And be it enacted, That the several clauses and sections of the declaration of rights, constitution and form of government, and every part of any law of this state, contrary to the provisions of this act, so far as respects the sect of people aforesaid, shall be, and the same is hereby declared to be repealed and annulled on the confirmation hereof.

Source: As printed in JUS, vol. 1, 39–40. Reprinted from Sketch of Proceedings in the Legislature of Maryland, December Session, 1818, on What Is Commonly Called the Jew Bill (Baltimore: James Robinson, 1819), 12–13.

2.16—J. I. COHEN TO E. S. THOMAS ON THE MARYLAND JEW BILL, 1818

E. S. Thomas, Esq.,

Annapolis, Md.

Dear Sir:

Noticing the proceedings of the present legislature of Md., I observe a committee has been appointed in the house of Delegates to bring in a Bill “to extend to persons professing the Jewish Religion the same civil privileges that are enjoyed by other religious sects” and that yourself with Mr. Kennedy by whom the motion was made and Mr. Breckenridge compose that committee.

Having the pleasure of a personal acquaintance with you I am induced from the importance of the subject to address you.

You cannot be aware Sir from not having felt the pressure of religious intolerance, of the emotions excited in the breast of an Israelite whenever the theme of liberty of conscience is canvassed. The subject of religion being the nearest and most vital to the soul of every sectarian it awakens every spark of feeling in support of those unalienable rights which the very nature of man forbids a transfer. On the question of the extension of religious freedom to any sect or denomination, the Jew feels with solicitude for a Brother sufferer and with the anxiety of him for whom the subject is intended particularly to operate, exults in his success or sinks deeper than before with the pangs which oppression have thrown over him, and in a tenfold degree bends him below his former station.

[ . . . ]

The motion of Mr. Kennedy at the same time that it reminds us of the indignity of our situation in the States also brings to mind the many blessings our profession enjoys in this country of liberty—that by the Constitution of the United States an Israelite is placed on the same footing with any other citizen of the Union and can be elevated to the highest station in the gift of the government or in the people such toleration is duly appreciated. On the other hand we are not insensible of the protection in our persons and property even under the laws of Maryland still as those obnoxious parts of its Constitution were produced only in times of darkness and prejudice why are they continued as blots on the present enlightened period and on the honor of the State in direct opposition also to the feature and principles in the Constitution of the United States.

I can scarcely admit a doubt that on a moment’s consideration and reflection a change will be made as the Prayer of Justice and reason.

The grievance complained of and for which redress is asked is that part of the Constitution of Maryland, which requiring a declaration of belief in the Christian Religion prevents a Jew accepting any office his fellowmen might elect him to or think him deserving the enjoyment of. He is thus incapacitated because he cannot abjure the principles instilled in him of worshipping the Almighty according to the dictates of his own conscience and take an oath of belief in other tenets as if such declaration of Belief made him a better man or one more capable of exercising the duties of the office which the want of that declaration would deprive him of because he maintains his unalienable rights with a steadfast and upright hand. Because he cannot consent to act hypocritically he is deemed unworthy to be trusted and to be as it were disfranchised, thus incapacitating on the very grounds that ought to entitle him to confidence in the discharge of any duty he might be called upon to perform viz: a complete independence and unbiased judgment formed on the broad foundation of moral rectitude.

[ . . . ]

In times of peril and war the Jews have borne the privations incident to such times and their best exertions have been given to their utmost, in defense of the common cause. See the Israelite in the ranks of danger, exposing his life in the defense of the Country of his adoption or of his nativity and then ask the views of the man in such exposure—the cause alone—he bears the brunt of the battle and the toils of the day with the knowledge of having discharged his duty; he retires with the pleasing consolation of mental correctness and the silent approbation of his own conscience. Here he rests, having attained the summit of his expectations. Sensible of his worth, his Commander would offer him promotion the honorable and only boon a Soldier aspires to. He cannot, vain are his wishes. The State under whose banners he has fought and bled debars him its acceptance. Here Sir, is an evidence of the injustice of the act of the Constitution, and the effect perhaps of that inaction which I have noticed above.

Still stranger tho are the cases requiring the decision of a Jury, look there at the situation of a man professing the Jewish Religion. I wish not to be understood that he could not obtain justice, such is not my meaning, but he is to be judged by men whom perhaps prejudice might influence in their verdict and the very course of justice be impeded by mere caprice incident to strong individual feeling.

By the present system a Jew is deprived of a seat in that body where by a liberal construction of matters and circumstances and a free interchange of sentiment on the broad basis of both Jewish and Christian doctrine to “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” might those prejudices be combatted and justice satisfied in its strictest sense. I cannot name the unworthy equality a Jew is placed on trial by Jury. On this great question of right, the guarantee of Freedom and political liberty I will leave you to judge as a legislator and an American Freeman.

Your attention I need not solicit on this occasion, being satisfied of the liberality of your views and the pleasure it would afford you in the opportunity of redressing the grievances of your Constituents. A bill relating to an equality of rights intended for the present purposes was reported in the Senate of Maryland during the Session of 1816 and was not acted upon. I do not know why. I confidently trust however that the present legislature will take up the subject with the consideration it merits.

Whatever may be the fate of the proposed bill permit me to request, if not improper that the Ayes and Nays be taken and placed on record on the general question as well as on any previous one, which might involve such general question or be indicative of its final result.

[ . . . ]

I am, Dear Sir, Yours with great Respect, (signed)

J. I. Cohen.

Source: As printed in JUS, vol. 1, 33–37. Draft in the Mendes Cohen Collection, Maryland Historical Society, Folder II.

BUSINESS AND LABOR

2.17—HAYM SALOMON, BUSINESS ADVERTISEMENT, Freeman’s Journal, 1782

Haym Salomon (1740–1785), a Polish-born Jew, immigrated to New York City in 1775, where he became quite involved in pro-revolutionary work as a member of the Sons of Liberty. Enduring two arrests by the British for his activism, Salomon managed to escape his captivity and settle in patriot-held Philadelphia, where he emerged as an important financier aiding the revolutionary cause. With the war’s conclusion, Solomon took up business in Philadelphia. He described his services in a 1782 advertisement.

Haym Salomon, Broker to the Office of Finance, to the Consul General of France, and to the Treasurer of the French Army, at his office in Front Street, between Market & Arch streets. Buys and sells on commission bank stock, bills of exchange on France, Spain, Holland, and other parts of Europe, the West-Indies, and inland bills, at the usual commissions.

He buys & sells loan office certificates, continental and state money, of this or any other state, paymaster and quartermaster generals notes; these, and every other kind of paper transactions (bills of exchange excepted) he will charge his employers no more than one half per cent, for his commission.

He procures money on loan for a short time and gets notes and bills discounted.

Gentlemen and others, residing in this state, or any of the United States, by sending their orders to the office, may depend on having their business transacted with as much fidelity and expedition as if they were themselves present.

He receives tobacco, sugars, tea, and every other sort of goods, to sell on commission, for which purpose he has provided proper stores.

He flatters himself his assiduity, punctuality, and extensive connection in his business, as a broker, is well established in various parts of Europe, and in the United States in particular.

All persons who shall please to favour him with their business may depend upon his utmost exertion for their interest, and part of the money advanced, if desired.

Source: As printed in JAW, 124–25. From Freeman’s Journal, or North-American Intelligencer, Nov. 6, 1782.

2.18—WILL OF CHARLESTON’S JACOB JACOBS, WHICH INCLUDED SLAVES, 1797

South Carolina auctioneer Jacob Jacobs (1742–1797) typified the status and position of more prosperous southern Jews in the early national period. His will, included as follows, offers details of his net worth, his possessions, as well as his network of family and friends, both in the United States and overseas. Jacobs also included his synagogue in his will, reflecting his engagement with local Jewish life. As was the case with other southern Jews in this period, Jacobs owned slaves, whom he left to his wife. While some slave owners chose to free their slaves upon their death or that of a surviving spouse, Jacobs ordered his charges to be sold after his wife’s death so that the proceeds could go to friends in Charleston.

In the Name of God, Amen. I Jacob Jacobs of the City of Charleston, in the State of South Carolina Vendue Master, being of sound and disposing Mind, Memory and Understanding do this twenty fourth day of June in the Year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred and Ninety-Six, Make, publish and declare this my last Will and Testament in manner and form following, that is to say: First, I will that all my just Debts and Funeral charges be fully paid, as soon as may be after my decease, by my Executors herein after named. Item I give unto the Synagogue in Charleston of which I am a Member the Sum of Ten Pounds. Item I give unto my Sister Rachael Jacobs the Sum of Twenty five Pounds to be remitted to her in Great Britain free of all deductions by my Executors herein after named, as soon as may be after my decease. Item I give unto my Brother Samuel Jacobs the Sum of Ten pounds, To my Sister in law Phila Nunes I give the Sum of Twenty Pounds, And my Will is that the said several pecuniary Legacies shall be paid free from all deduction whatever. Item my Will is, and I do hereby give unto my Friend Gershon Cohen of the City of Charleston aforesaid, my gold Stock Buckle, Silver Shoe Buckles and Stone Knee Buckles. Item I give and bequeath unto my dearly beloved Wife Katey Jacobs all my Household and Kitchen Furniture, Plate, China, Stock of Liquors, Horses, Carriages, Monies, Bonds, Notes, and Book Debts whatsoever and wheresoever absolutely for ever, subject nevertheless to the several Devises and Bequests herein before by me made and given. Item I give and devise unto my said dearly beloved Wife Katey Jacobs during her Widowhood and no longer all those my Negro and other Slaves named Toby, Scipio, Jack, Jenny with her three Children Peter, John and Eve, and Flora with her two Children Rachael and Lucy and all the other Slaves that I may be possessed of, at the time of my death. And from and immediately after the death or Marriage of her my said Wife, which may first happen, then my Will further is, and I do hereby direct, enjoin, authorize and empower my Executors herein after named, or such of them as shall take upon themselves the burden and execution of this my Will, to expose to Sale and sell either at public or private Sale, each, every, and all of the said Negro, and other Slaves, with the Issue of the Females, herein before given unto my said Wife, and the money arising from the Sale of the said Slaves, to be placed out at Interest, and secured with a Mortgage of real Estate, and also good and Sufficient personal Security. And the Proceeds arising from the Sale of the said Slaves to be equally divided share and share alike between each and every of the Children (if more than one) of my Friends Gershom and Rebecca Cohen of Charleston . . . In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my Hand and Seal, the day and Year first above written.

Jacob Jacobs Ls

Source: As printed in JUS, vol. 1, 104–5; 107. Recorded in Charleston Will Book, 26 (1793–1800), 640–44. “Friend Cohen” appears as “Gershon” and “Gershom” in the original.

2.19—A. H. COHEN TO THOMAS JEFFERSON, REGARDING THE HEALTH BENEFITS OF MINERAL WATER, DECEMBER 21, 1807

Abraham Hyam Cohen (1779–1841)—son of Jacob Raphael Cohen (1738–1811), spiritual leader of Philadelphia’s Mikve Israel congregation—was a merchant interested in marketing the health benefits of mineral water. In writing to Thomas Jefferson in 1807, Cohen hoped to persuade one of the nation’s Founding Fathers to provide a public endorsement of his product. In a courteous but firm reply, Jefferson declined Cohen’s request.

His Excellency Thos. Jefferson

Honoured Sir

Regarding you as the Patron of Arts & Sciences in our Infant Country. I am Led to Take the Liberty of offerring to your Notice an Institution which If favoured with your Approbation will I flatter myself produce a Publick Good. as Such am Confident it will Need no other Commendation to Merit your Patronage. The Beneficial Effects derived from the Use of Mineral Waters which have become Celebrated by affording Relief in Cases where most other Remedies have failed has Induced the most Celebrated Chemists to Ascertain by a Correct Annalysis these Beneficial properties & by Chemically combining those Traits to produce by Art what Nature hath so bountifully bestowed and so far have they Succeeded. as to Merit a decided preferrence of the Artificial to the Natural Waters by Increasing their Active properties and Excluding foreign particles not Necessary but Rather detrimental to Health. . . . The Happy Effects derived from their Use have been already Evinced by an approving Publick & Testimonies of the most Celebrated & Eminent Chemists & Medical Characters in this City. Yet in order to Give it all the Advantages that Might Result It Requires the aid of a Larger Capital than in my power to afford. to Render it of that Extensive Utility. to prove a Publick Benefit the aid of a Capital from 10 to 15000 doll. would Accomplish the Object of Erecting a Suitable Building in which fountains would be Placed as the Waters are now delivered and would be Sufficient to furnish a Supply to the United States or also to furnish them Gratuitously to the Poor, to whom the Physicians Might deem it Necessary.

. . . I now Submit an Outline of the Plans for [your] Approval, the above Sum to be divided into Shares of 50 dol. cash payable in Installments, the Subscribers to be Entitled to Exclusive privilige & receive the amount to themselves or order in Mineral Waters at a deduction of 20 [per ct.(?)] from the Selling price. your Approval & patronage Joined to the Respectable characters in this city will fully Enable me to accomplish this object and dedicate an Institution to you Whose Virtues an Applauding Mind will Never cease to Emulate and which the Voice of Envy cannot Tarnish. Nor Shall any Exertions on my Part be wanting to Render the Establishment Worthy of this Honour & prove the Gratitude of Yr Respectfull & Obt Serv.

Abraham Cohen

Phil: Dec. 21 1807.

No 31 So. 2d Street

Source: As printed in JUS, vol. 1, 481–82. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.

2.20—REPLY OF THOMAS JEFFERSON TO A. H. COHEN, FEBRUARY 10, 1808

Sir

I have not been able sooner to acknolege the receipt of your letter of Dec. 21 which did not come to hand till Jan. 27 nor to return you my thanks for the mineral waters which came with it. I am happy to learn that these productions of nature can be successfully imitated by art, and that something may thereby be added useful to mankind. of the degree of that utility I acknolege myself not a judge, being little acquainted with the composition of these waters, and still less with their effects on the human body, a consciousness of this would make it too presumptuous in me to suppose that any connection of my name with an establishment for their preparation would be a recommendation of them to the public. they would be sensible that it is out of my line and would view it as neither favorable to myself or the medecine. the names of the celebrated Physicians of Philadelphia are those which would give a just reputation to these waters, and present them with authority to the notice of the public giving every just praise therefore to the efforts you have so meritoriously exerted in perfecting a preparation which may relieve the afflicted from some of their sufferings. I feel it a duty to leave it’s [sic] fortunes & it’s direction in the hands of those so much better qualified to promote it’s success: and I pray you to accept my best wishes for that, & my respectful salutations.

Th. Jefferson

Mr: Cohen.

Source: As printed in JUS, vol. 1, 482–83. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.

RELIGION

2.21—CONGREGATIONALIST MINISTER EZRA STILES TO HIS FRIEND RABBI HAIM ISAAC CARIGAL, JULY 7, 1775

The strong personal friendship between Ezra Stiles (1727–1795), a Congregationalist minister in Newport, Rhode Island (who later would become president of Yale College), and Haim Isaac Carigal (1733–1777), a Hebron-born rabbi, began in 1773, when Stiles met Carigal at the Newport synagogue. As the letter to follow demonstrates, these two men respected each other and developed a warm personal association. Carigal tutored Stiles during his brief sojourn in North America, and the two began exchanging letters in Hebrew. After Carigal left for the Caribbean in September of 1773, the two men maintained a correspondence that continued until Carigal’s death in 1777. In this interesting communication written in 1775, Stiles sadly informs Carigal about the death of his wife. He also provides the rabbi with a detailed description of the American Revolution.

Newport July 7, 1775

Reverend Sir

A few days ago Mr Ribera [probably the Newport merchant Jacob Rodriguez Rivera (1717–1789)] informed me that you complained in a Letter to him of your not havg recd. my Answer to your several kind Letters. Be assured, dear Sir, it has not proceeded from Want of Affection & Respect to my very worthy friend. Your Letters of 17[?] Sept. 1773, May 27 1774 July 5 1774 and Oct. 11 1774 are now before me—the last tho’ written last October I did not receive till this day. They all gave me the great pleasure & Satisfaction that you was in health & that you was agreeably settled at Barbados to your Mind, being Installed & estabd the Rabbi and Hocham of the Synagogue there & that you hoped & waited the Arrival of your Lady & Children from the holy Land to settle down in Tranqy with you for the rest of Life. I pray Gd soon to give you a sight of your dear Famy & long continue you with them. Whatever shall contribute to your happs in Time & Eterny I shall sincerely rejoice in. You have my best Wishes in whatever may concern your Welfare.

I myself am in Tears & Sorrow. It has pleased the Most High in whose hand are all our Changes, to take to himself my dear Wife who died 29th May last. I trust & hope She is now at rest b’gan eden [in Paradise] with Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebecca and Jacob, Rachel. She had a great Esteem & Respect for you, & often enquired after you & spake of you with pleasure. The tenderest of all Sorrows is that of parting with a bosom Friend. Oh! the last—last—Silence of a Friend. May it be long before you, dear Sir, shall be called to experience so tender a Grief. But one Condition of our comg together in the married Life is, that, sooner or later one shall mourn the death of the other. May we live the Life of Holiness & Virtue on Earth thro’ the Intercession of the Angel of the Cov[enan]t, we may meet & rejoyce in that better World where all Tears shall be wiped away, & sighing & sorrow shall be no more. . . .

You will joyn with me in lamentg that Great Britian [sic] & the Engsh Colonies in America are involved in a most unnatural Civil War; which rages with unbounded Fury Horrors & Desolation especially in New Engld. The Kings Troops in & about Boston with the last Recruits come over are nearest Eight-Thousd. The Continental American Army at Cambridge & around Boston were Twenty Thousd & upwards last Week under a continual Increase. Last week Connecticutt voted an Addition of 2000, N York 3000 and Pensylva. 4500: so that you may rely upon it that the American Army this summer consists of Thirty Thousd in actual service. Hostilities were commenced at Lexington 15 miles from Boston 19th April last. A second considerable Action was at Noddle Isld [East Boston] on 27 May. But a third & far the greatest was at Charlesto. on 17th June. You will see & hear very various & differing accounts of them all. With all the Candor I can, I will give you an Estimate of the losses on both sides—tho’ it is difficult to obtain the exact Truth. In that of 19th April the Americans lost exactly fourty two killed & twenty two, a much smaller proportion wounded than usual in Battles, owing probably, under God, to their scattered hussar [?] manner of Fighting. The [British] Regulars lost accordg to the Return of a Major Brigadr [?] of their own sixty one killed 157 wounded 23 missing privates, besides one officer killed & inclusive of him 17 Officers wounded & Captives. So that they were damaged 258, while the Americans were damaged scarcely one Quarter of that Number. . . .

. . . The Continental Congress have constituted Mr. Washington of Virginia Generalissimo of all the American Continental forces, & 5 others Major Generals, viz, [Artemas] Ward, [Charles] Lee, [Philip] Schuyler [,] [Israel] Putnam, & [John] Sullivan. Mr Lee has been an English Officer & a General in the Service of the King of Poland. Gens Washg & Lee arrived at Head Qurs in Cambridge 2d. Instant. We are in constant Expecta of a bloody Battle. The Americans have made their Appeal to Heaven—and the Event is with the Ld of Hosts.

Ezra Stiles

To Rabbi Carigal

Hocham of Barbados

Sent by Mr Miller of Barbados who sailed July 24 1775

Source: Stanley Chyet, ed., The Event Is with the Lord (Cincinnati: American Jewish Archives, 1976), 1–6. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library of Yale University.

2.22—APPEAL TO THE CITIZENS OF PHILADELPHIA FOR DONATIONS TO SAVE THEIR SYNAGOGUE FROM FORECLOSURE, MIKVE ISRAEL CONGREGATION, PHILADELPHIA, APRIL 30, 1788

A gesture during a financial crisis at Philadelphia’s Congregation Mikve Israel demonstrated the heightened sense of hope and optimism that surrounded interfaith relations in early national America. In 1788, the leadership of Mikve Israel revealed that the synagogue faced a debt of 800 pounds sterling: the congregation’s capital campaign appeal had fallen short of its goal after several of its wealthy congregants left Philadelphia to return to their permanent homes in New York City, Newport, and Savannah (all of which had been occupied by British forces until the Revolution’s end). Faced with foreclosure, synagogue leaders made an emergency appeal across religious lines to the general Philadelphia community. Some of the most prominent non-Jewish citizens of Philadelphia, including Benjamin Franklin, Charles Biddle, William Rush, and David Rittenhouse, responded to the April 30, 1788, appeal reprinted as follows.

To the humane, charitable, and well disposed people, the representation and solicitation of the good people of the Hebrew society [community] in the City of Philadelphia, commonly called Israelites.

Whereas, the religious order of men in this city denominated Israelites were without any synagogue or house of worship untill the year 1780 [1782], when, desirous of accommodating themselves and encouraged thereto by a number of respectable and worthy bretheren of the Hebrew society then in this place [who generously contributed to the design], they purchased a lot of ground and erected thereon the buildings necessary and proper for their religious worship.

And whereas many of their number at the close of the late war returned to New York, Charleston, and elsewhere their homes (which they had been exiled from and obliged to leave on account of their attachment to American measures), leaving the remaining few of their religion here burthened with a considerable charge consequent from so great an undertaking;

And whereas the present congregation, after expending all the subscriptions, loans, gifts, etc., made the society by themselves and the generous patrons of their religious intentions, to the amount of at least £2200, were obliged to borrow money to finish the building, and contract other debts that is now not only pressingly claimed, but a judgment will actually be obtained against their house of worship, which must be sold unless they are speedily enabled to pay the sum of about £800; and which, from a variety of delicate and distressing causes they are wholly unable to raise among themselves;

They are therefore under the necessity of earnestly soliciting from their worthy fellow-citizens of every religious denomination their benevolent aid and help, flattering themselves that their worshipping Almighty God in a way and manner different from other religious societies will never deter the enlightened citizens of Philadelphia from generously subscribing towards the preservation of a religious house of worship. The subscription paper will be enrolled in the archives of their congregation, that their posterity may know and gratefully remember the liberal supporters of their religious society.

Philadelphia, April 30th, 1788.

Source: As printed in JAW, 107–8. Archives, Mikveh Israel, Philadelphia.

2.23—HANNAH ADAMS, REPORTING ON GERSHOM SEIXAS’S SURVEY OF AMERICAN JEWRY, 1812

In the early nineteenth century, Hannah Adams (1755–1831), a non-Jew, took an interest in the nation’s Jewish community. Reflecting on information she gained from two leading American Jews, New York’s most distinguished Jewish clergyman, Gershom Mendes Seixas (1745–1816), and a Charleston merchant named Philip Cohen (1781–1866), Adams published a narrative history documenting Jewish life in two of the country’s largest and most important Jewish communities.

PREFACE

The history of the Jews since their dispersion has been but little investigated even by the literary part of the world, and is almost entirely unknown to the general mass of mankind. The design of this work, including the introduction, is to give a brief sketch of their situation, after their return from the Babylonian captivity, to the nineteenth century. . . .

. . . The history of the Jews is remarkable, above that of all other nations, for the number and cruelty of the persecutions they have endured. They are venerable for the antiquity of their origin. They are discriminated from the rest of mankind by their wonderful destination, peculiar habits, and religious rites. Since the destruction of Jerusalem, and their universal dispersion, we contemplate the singular phenomenon of a nation subsisting for ages without its civil and religious polity, and thus surviving its political existence.

But the Jews appear in a far more interesting and important light when considered as a standing monument of the truth of the christian religion; as the ancient church of God to whom were committed the sacred oracles; as a people selected from all nations to make and preserve the knowledge of the true God. To them the gospel was first preached, and from them the first christian church in Jerusalem was collected. To them we are indebted for the scriptures of the New, as well as of the Old Testament. . . .

To the intelligent and well informed the difficulty of collecting the history of a people so little known, particularly in this country, during the last and present century, wholly from desultory and unconnected materials, will appear obvious. The compiler can only say, that however deficient and ill arranged her history may be, she has spared no exertions in her power to collect authentic documents, and has used them to the best of her ability. But while she relies on the candour and indulgence of the publick, she cannot forbear to express the warmest gratitude to those respectable gentlemen whose generous patronage has enabled her to devote her time to literary pursuits.

CHAP. XXXIV

The Jews have never been numerous in New England; but among those who settled in the colonies some have been distinguished for the respectability of their characters. Judah Monis, a Jewish convert to the christian religion, was admitted a publick teacher at Harvard University. He is stated to have been a native of Algiers, who probably received his education in Italy, though we know nothing of him till his arrival in this country. But after he came to Boston he seems to have been soon invited to fill the office of Hebrew instructer in the university, where he was settled March 27th, 1722. Before he could be admitted, it was rendered necessary by the statutes, that he should change his religion, which he professes to have done with perfect disinterestedness, though he continued till his death to observe the seventh day as the sabbath. . . .

Previous to the American revolution, while the Jews convened at their synagogue in Rhode Island, the late president [of Yale Ezra] Stiles commenced an acquaintance with Haijim Carigal, a rabbi who had lately arrived in the city. “Having travelled very extensively in the eastern world, and being a man of observation, learning, and intelligence, his conversation was highly entertaining and instructive. He was born at Hebron, and educated there and at Jerusalem. He had travelled all over the Holy Land, and visited many cities in Asia and Europe. The doctor was greatly delighted with his society, and had frequent intercourse with him for the purpose of acquiring the pronunciation of the Hebrew; of ascertaining the meaning of ambiguous expressions in the original of the Old Testament; of learning the usages of the modern Jews; of conversing on past events relating to this extraordinary nation, as recorded in sacred history; and of tracing its future destiny by the light of prophecy. They cultivated a mutual friendship when together, and corresponded in Hebrew when apart.”

The rabbi, not long after his arrival, attended his worship by agreement, and heard him discourse in an affectionate manner on the past dispensations of God’s providence towards his chosen people; on his promised design of rendering them an exalted nation in the latter day glory of the Messiah’s kingdom; and on the duty of Christians, and of all nations, to desire a participation in their future glorious state.

“So catholick was the intercourse between this learned Jew and learned Christian, that they often spent hours together in conversation; and the information which the extensive travels of the Jew enabled him to give, especially concerning the Holy Land, was a rich entertainment to his christian friend. The civilities of the rabbi were more than repaid. The doctor very frequently attended the worship of the synagogue at Newport, not only when rabbi Carigal officiated, but at the ordinary service before his arrival, and after his departure.”

With six other rabbis of less eminence he became acquainted, and showed them every civility, while he maintained a friendly communication with the Jews in general in Newport. Such rare and unexpected attentions from a christian minister of distinction could not but afford peculiar gratification to a people, conscious of being a proverb and bye word among nations. To him they accordingly paid every attention in return, and expressed peculiar pleasure in admitting him into their families, and into their synagogues.

Dr. [Abiel] Holmes [father of Oliver Wendell] in concluding this account judiciously remarks, that “this civility and catholicism towards the Jews is worthy of imitation. It is to be feared that Christians do not what ought to be done towards the conversion of this devoted people. While admitted into most countries for the purpose of trade and commerce, instead of being treated with that humanity and tenderness which christianity should inspire, they are often persecuted and condemned as unworthy of notice or regard. Such treatment tends to prejudice them against our holy religion, and to establish them in their infidelity.”

A respectable rabbi of New York has given the following account of his brethren in the United States.

“There are about fifty families of Jews in New York, which, with a number of unmarried men, make from seventy to eighty subscribing members to the congregation Sherith Israel, which is incorporated by an act of the legislature of the state, empowering all religious societies to hold their property by charter, under the direction of trustees chosen annually by the communicants of the society, according to certain rules prescribed in the act. . . .”

A more particular account of the Jews in South Carolina has been given by one of the principal members of their congregation in the capital of the state, the substance of which is as follows.

“The first emigration of the Jews to Charleston took place long before the revolution. The spirit of commerce can never be extinct in them; and their wealth increased with their numbers, which were augmented from time to time, both by marriages, and acquisitions from Europe. The present number of Jews may be estimated about a thousand. Charleston alone contains about six or seven hundred individuals.

“The present number of Hebrews in the city are chiefly Carolinians, the descendants of German, English, and Portuguese emigrants, who, from the civil and religious tyranny of Europe, sought an asylum in the western world. While the contest for freedom and independence was carried on, the majority distinguished themselves as brave soldiers and gallant defenders of the cause of a country which protected them. This spirit still actuates them; and as it is but natural that a people, who for ages have groaned under the impolitic barbarity and blind fanaticism of Europe, should inhale the breath of freedom with delight, the Hebrews in this city pay their hearty homage to the laws, which guarantee their rights, and consolidate them into the mass of a free people.

“The religious rites, customs, and festivals of the Jews are all strictly observed by those of this nation in Charleston; but ameliorated with that social liberality, which pervades the minds and manners of the inhabitants of civilized countries. Indeed the seats in a Jewish synagogue are often crowded with visitors of every denomination. The episcopal functions are now discharged by the Rev. Ca[r]valho, late professor of the Hebrew language in the college of New York. . . .

“The institutions which the Jews have established in Charleston, are chiefly religious and charitable. They have built an elegant synagogue; and what strongly exhibits the liberality of the city is, that the Roman Catholick church is directly opposite to it. They have also societies for the relief of strangers, for attending the sick, and for administering the rites of humanity, and burial to the dying and the dead. The most modern institution is a society for the relief of orphans. The capital is already considerable, and it is yearly increasing. The children receive every advantage which is necessary to enable them to be well informed and honourable citizens of their country.”

. . . The United States is, perhaps, the only place where the Jews have not suffered persecution, but have, on the contrary, been encouraged and indulged in every right of citizens.

The Jews in all the United States, except Massachusetts, are eligible to offices of trust and honour; and some of them in the southern states are in office. They are generally commercial men, and a number of them considerable merchants.

Source: As printed in JUS, vol. 1, 88–93. From Hannah Adams, History of the Jews (Boston: n.p., 1812), 1, iii–iv, vi; 2, 210–21.

2.24—ADDRESS BY PHILLIP MILLEDOLER ON EVANGELIZING THE JEWS, 1817

Although American Jews enjoyed constitutional protection of religious expression, they still faced various challenges, among them attempts by private Christian organizations to proselytize. In 1816, a Christian group based in New York City, the American Society for Evangelizing the Jew, established itself with the aim of bringing “the Jews to the acknowledgment of Jesus Christ of Nazareth as the true Messiah.” The following year, the group’s president, Rev. Dr. Phillip Milledoler (1775–1852), delivered an address in which he expanded on the society’s purpose.

Whether we contemplate, dear Brethren, the general signs of the times in which we live, or the particular providences which have recently occurred in this city, and which have marked the case before us, does it not appear that we are called to do something in favour of the Jews?

That we are not destitute of encouragement, nay, that we are in duty bound to make the attempt, will, we think, appear from various and important considerations.

The restoration of that people to the Lord is positively contemplated and predicted in numerous prophecies.

Encouraged by this circumstance, the church of God has never ceased, either before or since the destruction of Jerusalem, to offer prayer for them, and that to an extent which has not yet been, but will most assuredly be answered. They are also certainly included in the general commission, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.”

It is also believed, that there is nothing in their political, moral, or religious character at the present day, which presents a more formidable barrier to the spread of the Gospel among them, than when it was first propagated among them by the disciples of the Lord. . . . Their civil relation to the inhabitants of this country is supposed to be favourable to the objects we have in view; so far from being treated amongst us with insult and injury, as in other lands, they have enjoyed equal privileges with their fellow citizens. This circumstance ought to soften, and probably has softened, their prejudices against the Christians of these United States.

Although we recognize with pleasure that the Jews have suffered no immediate or direct persecution at our hands, yet we may not, and dare not assert, that they have never suffered at the hands of our forefathers. For this, so far as we have it in our power, we owe them reparation.

But is it not a fact, brethren, that the Jews have strong claims upon us on the score of gratitude? Were not the oracles of the living God in the first instance committed to that people? Have they not been the honoured instruments of preserving and handing down to us Gentiles those precious and uncontaminated records? To whom pertained “the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises,” but to that people? . . . Is not that nation rendered illustrious above all others, by that single circumstance of the descent from them according to the flesh, of Messiah, that great Prince; that Almighty conqueror; that eternal Saviour? And who were the first Heralds of the glorious Gospel of the blessed God to the perishing nations? Who were Peter, and James, and John, and Paul, with their noble minded associates? Were they not Jews? . . .

But for their efforts, their intrepidity, their tears, and groans, and blood, we might, humanly speaking, have been to this day, worshipping with horrid rites the gods of our idolatrous ancestors. As, then, the blessings of the Gospel we enjoy are of incalculable worth, we owe an inextinguishable debt of gratitude to the Jews, from whose hands we have received them. . . .

In vain do we look in their religious rites for that warm and devotional spirit which characterized the worship of their pious fathers. It is said, and we believe they have not been slandered, that their religious exercises are scarcely conducted with the form, much less with the spirit, of devotion.

The female character among them holds a station far inferior to that which it was intended to occupy by the God of nature and of providence; and their children, where semblance of regard is still preserved for ancient institutions, are in many instances taught to contemn and to blaspheme that worthy name which is connected with all that is valuable in life or cheering in death. Are the eyes of any of them partially opened to the truth? Do they discover a disposition to fly to the banners of the despised Nazarene? What contempt do they not experience? What opposition do they not encounter from their associates? What strong appeals are made, not to their reason, nor to the Scriptures, but to the love of kindred, to early attachments, and to their fears? These appeals, followed by corresponding acts, are certainly calculated in ordinary cases to arrest further inquiry, and to blast in its first appearance the very germ of hope. In this description of the Jews it will be remembered that we are speaking in general terms. We do not by any means intend to say, that all which is here stated will apply to every individual and family among them:—we still hope better things of some of them, and especially of that part of the nation which is resident in this country. We believe, however, as a general statement, that what has been said of them is strictly correct. . . .

Can we behold a Jew without emotions of compassion, or contemplate his situation without pain? If so, how can we flatter ourselves that we possess the spirit of our Master, or of the friends of our Master? Do we remember how he, the Lord Jesus, laboured among them? Do we remember his prayer for them on the Cross? Have we buried in oblivion the transactions of the day of Pentecost? Thousands on that memorable day, whose hands were yet reeking with his blood, were made the monument of his mercy. What ardent zeal is manifested by the Apostle Paul in behalf of his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh? Did not that zeal pervade the whole college of the Apostles, and where or when has it been extinguished among the Disciples of the Lord?

We hope that none will object to the work of attempting their salvation. What reasonable objection to it can be made? Is it their attachment to their ancient worship? Is it their hatred of Christianity? Is it the hardness of their hearts—their unwillingness to receive instruction—or their malevolence towards those who labour in their cause? Ah, if the Apostles of the Lord had reasoned in this manner, we might have been to this day like the Jews, without hope and without God in the world. No objection of this kind will apply to them which would not have equally applied to the Gentiles of other times, as well as to the Gentiles of the present hour. . . .

With the accomplishment of this object, brethren, is connected the glory of God—the honour of the Redeemer—the prosperity of Zion—and the diffusion and establishment of the faith once delivered to the saints. Let it not be forgotten that the restoration of the Jews is to be a signal for the conversion of the great body of the Gentiles. It is more than probable that through their instrumentality as Missionaries of the Cross, those Scriptures will be fulfilled which relate to the general conversion of the Gentiles. . . .

To conclude—As final prosperity in this measure must depend on the Almighty co-operation of a redeeming Saviour, we entreat all those who have the hope of an interest at the throne of grace, to offer, both in public and in private, more particular, more extensive, and more fervent prayer to God, than has been usual, for that people in general, and for the success of this object in our own city in particular.

By order,

Philip Milledoler,

President.

Source: Religious Intelligencer 1 (Jan. 25, 1817): 555.

FAMILY LIFE

2.25—FRANCES SHEFTALL TO HER HUSBAND, JULY 20, 1780

In 1778, Mordecai Sheftall (1735–1797) and his son Sheftall Sheftall (1762–1849) were captured by British soldiers and imprisoned for having served as quartermasters for Georgia’s militia during the Revolutionary War. Just before their release on parole in 1780, Mordecai’s wife, Frances (1740–1820), wrote a letter that provides insight into the challenges she faced while her husband and son languished in jail.

Charls Town [South Carolina], July 20th, 1780

My dear Sheftall:

I have now the pleasure to inform you that I received your letter on the 19 instn., dated May the 5, and sincerly congratulate you and my dear childe on your enlargement [impending release], hoping that we may once more meet again in a great deal of pleasure, for I can assure you that we have been strangers to that for some time past. But I still hope that our troubles will now be soon at an end.

I make not the least doubt, but ere thise comes to hand that you have herd that thise place [Charleston] was given over to the British troops on May 12th by a caputalation after three longe months sige. During that time I retier’d into the country with my family, and a great many of our people [Jews] ware at the same place. During the sige thare was scarce a woman to be see[n] in the streets. The balls flew like haile during the cannonading.

After the town was given over, I returned to town and have hierd a house in St. Michael’s Alley belonging to Mrs. Stephens at the rate of fifty pounds sterlinge a year. And whear the money is to come from God only knows, for their is nothing but hard money goes here, and that, I can assure you, is hard enough to be got.

I am obliged to take in needle worke to make a living for my family, so I leave you to judge what a livinge that must be.

Our Negroes [slaves] have every one been at the point of death, so that they have been of no use to me for thise six weeks past. But, thankes be to God, they are all getting the better of it except poor little Billey; he died with the yellow fever on the 3 of July.

The children have all got safe over the small pox. They had it so favourable that Perla had the most and had but thirty [pockmarks]. How I shall be able to pay the doctor’s bill and house rent, God only knowes. But I still trust to Providence knowing that the Almighty never sends trouble but he sends some relife.

As to our Adam [a free servant?], he is so great a gentleman that was it to please God to put it in your power to send for us, I do thinke that he would come with us.

I wrote to you about three weeks agoe by way of St. Austatia [Eustatia] to Antigua [where you were held by the British] whare I mention every particular to you, but must now refer it untill it shall pleas God that we see you again. You[r] brother Levy went out of town during the sige toward the northward and has not returned as yet. Thise day his youngest baby, Isaac, was buried. The poor baby was sicke for about three weeks and then died.

We have had no less than six Jew children buried since the sige, and poor Mrs. Cardosar [Cardozo], Miss Leah Toras that was, died last week with the small pox. Mr. DeLyon has lost his two grand children. Mrs. Mordecai has lost her child. Mrs. Myers Moses had the misfortune to have her youngest daughter, Miss Rachel, killed with the nurse by a cannon ball during the sige.

Perla begs that you will excuse her not whriting by thise oppertunity as she has been with her Aunt Sally for several nights and is very much fatigued, and the flag [of truce ship] goes immediately [with my letter], but hopes that she will be the bearrer of the next [letter] herselfe. But havinge so favourable an oppertunity as the flag [I] was willing to let you no [know] some little of our family affairs.

I have nothing more at present but wish to hear from you by the first oppertunity.

The children joine me in love to you and their brother, and I remain

Your loving wife,

Frances Sheftall.

Source: As printed in JAW, 105–7. Marion Levy Mendel’s Sheftall Collection, Savannah, Ga. Reprinted with permission of Marion Levy Mendel.

2.26—SAMUEL JONES, LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, INCLUDING INFORMATION ON HIS AFRICAN AMERICAN SLAVE, JENNY, AND THEIR SON, EMANUEL, JANUARY 20, 1809

Romantic relationships between Jews and African Americans in the early nineteenth century are difficult to document since they were not sanctioned. Yet historians have identified various instances of de facto marriages. Many scholars have suggested that Samuel Jones (d. 1809)—a Jewish soldier in the War of Independence and a resident of Charleston, South Carolina, for forty-six years—fathered a son, Emanuel, with his slave Jenny. Jones’s will, dated January 20, 1809, bequeaths to Jenny and Emanuel the majority of his estate, as well as the right to continue living in his house. Such unusual generosity toward a slave suggests that Jones may very well have fathered Emanuel.

In the Name of God Amen I Samuel Jones of the City of Charleston, South Carolina being at Present sound in Mind Praised be God for it, Do make this my last Will and Testament in manner following. That is to say First and Principally I commend my Soul into the hands of Almighty God, my Creator hoping for Pardon and forgivenefs of all my Sins, as to such of my Worldly Estate with which it has Pleased God to entrust me with I dispose of in the following Manner, After my Funeral expences and my lawful Debts are Paid, If I should not emancipate My Negro Woman Jenny, and her Son Emanuel during My life time, it is my desire that my Executors Do, emancipate My Negro Woman Jenny, and her Son Emanuel, and give to Jenny My Bed Sheets, Bedstead, Blankets, Tables, Pots, Plates, Chairs, Looking Glafs, allowing to Nanny, such part of them as she may stand in need of and also to Benjamin. My House in which I lived in King Street, two Months after my decease I desire to be sold and the Money arising from the sale thereof I request to be disposed of in Manner following[.] That is to say To Kerin Ka Ye Mot [Keren Kayemet—a charitable fund], One hundred Dollars. To Abi Ye to Men [Avi Yetomim—an orphan society] Fifty Dollars[.] To the Hebrew Benevolent Society Sixty Dollars[.] To the Orphan House One hundred Dollars[.] To My Negro Woman Jenny two hundred Dollars[.] To My Mullatto Woman Nanny One hundred and fifty Dollars. To Samuel Lee, Ben, David, Nathan and Emanuel One Hundred Dollars each[.] The amount of My Clock, Shop Goods and Plate, when sold, and the Legacies Paid the Overplus to be remitted to Great Britain to Abigail Jones, to be equally divided between her and her Children. My Lot up King Street, which is let on Leases, I leave to Nanny and Jenny, during their lives, the income of the same, after the Taxes are Paid, to Jenny I leave of the income of the Leases One hundred Dollars Pr. Year to be Paid to her Quarterly[.] To my Mulatto Woman Nanny[,] Ben, Nathan, David, and Emanuel I leave three hundred Dollars, to be equally divided amongst them, and to be Paid Quarterly[.] If in case of the Death of Either Jenny or Nanny their respective incomes to be divided equally amongst their Children[.] Also after the Death of Jenny and Nanny, the Land is to be sold and to be at their Option to lay it out in Lots, and the Money arising from the Sales, to be remitted to Great Britain to Abigail Jones and her Children. And it is my further desire not to drive Jenny and her Children out of my House in King Street, untill they have time to Procure a Place for their abode. It is further my desire to give them all Plain decent Mourning and a decent Tomb Stone for myself. And Lastly, I do Nominate and appoint My Worthy friends Moses C. Levy and Michael Lazarus My Executors[.] Witnefs My hand and Seal this Sixteen-Day of December in the Year of One thousand eight hundred and eight, and in the thirty second Year of the Independence of the United States of America.

Samuel Jones (Seal)

Signed and Sealed in the presence of

Charles Prince

A. L. Mender

William Forbes

Proved before Charles Lining Esquire O.C.T.D [Old Charles Towne District]. January 20, 1809

At same time qualified Michael Lazarus otherwise called Marks Lazarus Executor

Source: SC-5855, AJA.