July 11, 2024 • 37 mins
In 1809, North Carolina lawmakers tried to stop Jacob Henry from taking his seat in the state legislature because he was Jewish. Many Americans believed that Jews like Henry couldn’t be moral citizens in a Protestant America, and this inspired them to donate vast sums of money in the early nineteenth century to religious societies dedicated to converting Jews into good Christian citizens.
Featuring: David Sehat, David Sorkin, and Susanna Linsley
Narrated by Mark Oppenheimer
Written by John Turner and Lincoln Mullen
This series is made possible with support from the Henry Luce Foundation and the David Bruce Smith Foundation.
Antisemitism, U.S.A. is a production of R2 Studios at the Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media at George Mason University.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Unknown (00:00):
Support for Antisemitism, U.S.A. comes from
the Henry Luce Foundation andthe David Bruce Smith
Foundation.
Mark Oppenheimer (00:09):
Jacob Henry and his wife, Esther were
prosperous. Henry owned severalhundred acres of land and 12
slaves. Jacob and Esther had ahome near the waterfront. In
1809, Jacob Henry won reelectionto the North Carolina
legislature, where herepresented the citizens of
(00:32):
Carteret County. Henry was aFederalist, but it was the
Republicans, the party of ThomasJefferson and the newly
inaugurated President JamesMadison, who had a large
majority in the statelegislature. After his
reelection, Henry traveled toRaleigh and took his oath of
office. And then, two weekslater, he got a rude shock. One
(00:56):
of his fellow legislators fileda motion to vacate his seat. In
other words, they wanted to kickHenry out. The objection was on
religious grounds. Jacob Henrywas a Jew.
(01:20):
I'm Mark Oppenheimer, and thisis Antisemitism, U.S.A., a
podcast about the history ofanti semitism in the United
States. This is episode two,Moral Citizens. In the early
years of the country, onlycertain kinds of virtuous people
were believed to be capable ofself governance, and whom did
(01:41):
Americans consider virtuous?Protestant Christians, not
Catholics, not atheists, andcertainly not Jews. In this
episode, we'll look at how Jewswere excluded from holding
political office. And then we'llturn to a 19th century society
that attempted to convert Jewsto Christianity to make them
(02:02):
into moral citizens. But fornow, let's get back to Jacob
Henry in North Carolinapolitics. North Carolina's state
constitution of 1776 declaredthat "all persons shall be at
liberty to exercise their ownmode of worship." before the
American Revolution, the Churchof England became established as
(02:23):
the official Church of NorthCarolina. But the state
constitution there made it clearthat no one would be forced to
pay for the church or attend anyplace of worship that was
against their own faith andjudgment. So why would the
legislature even considerdenying Jacob Henry his seat,
Henry had won the election fairand square, nobody doubted that.
(02:45):
Here's historian David Sehat,author of The Myth of American
Religious Freedom
David Sehat (02:51):
At least early on in American history, a lot of
times rights were connected toyour religious beliefs. various
states in the early republiclimited voting, for example, to
either Protestants, orChristians, or theists. And that
last category would includeJews, but the first two would
not. There were variouslimitations on who could run for
(03:13):
office. And these limitationswere sometimes explicit, like we
just don't allow Jews to run foroffice, or they were implicit in
that you had to take an oaththat was a Christian oath that
affirmed the divinity of Jesusand the divine inspiration of
the Old and the New Testaments,which would obviously exclude
Jews. So really, in all the waysin which you encounter the
(03:33):
state, if you pair a religiousobligation, or a religious
identity to interacting with thestate, you put those who are
outside that identity atdisadvantage and Jews were
frequently at disadvantage.
Mark Oppenheimer (03:47):
The problem Henry faced was that in North
Carolina in 1809, the stateconstitution barred Jews from
office even though it didn'tmention them. The article said,
North Carolina 1809 Constitution (03:59):
that no person who shall deny the
being of God, or the truth ofthe Protestant religion, or the
divine authority, either of theOld or New Testament, or who
shall hold religious principlesincompatible with the freedom
and safety of the state shall becapable of holding any office or
place of trust or profit in thecivil department within this
(04:21):
state.
Mark Oppenheimer (04:23):
So to hold office in North Carolina, the
state constitution required youto be a Protestant. It also
required you to believe both theOld and New Testaments. So while
a Jewish person might have beenable to claim truthfully, that
they believed in the Bible, theywouldn't think of the New
Testament as being divine. Whilethe United States Constitution
(04:44):
banned this sort of religioustest for federal office holding,
it wasn't until the middle ofthe 20th century that the
Supreme Court applied thefederal prohibition to the
states. The authors of the NorthCarolina constitution believed
in religious liberty. They'dstopped funding their own
Christian churches. Therestriction in their state
constitution was aimed atkeeping Catholics out of office,
(05:06):
because Protestants generallyconsidered Catholicism to be
incompatible with Liberty. In1776, when North Carolina
adopted its new constitution,there were maybe 2000 Jews
living in the United States. Butwhen Protestants thought about
groups they didn't want votingor in government, they thought
about Catholics as well as anadditional trifecta of Jews,
(05:29):
Mohamedans, which meant Muslims,and infidels, whom today we
might call atheists.
Unknown (05:36):
What happened when states stopped paying churches
is that many religious groupsinstead turned to morality as a
proxy to maintain religiouscontrol. So they would write
their moral ideals into law, andthereby shape the public
contours of American culture andof American society. And this
(05:56):
then gave American culturethroughout the 19th century a
kind of Protestant feel or vibe,because in many ways, the
official public moralityenforceable by the law and in
government was Protestant, itcame out of Protestant
sensibilities, it reinforcedProtestant moral ideas, and it
ultimately gave Protestantscontrol over that society to a
(06:18):
large degree. Protestants inparticular believed that once
you became a Christian, therewas an obligation to redeem or
sanctify society and to make itmore Christian which in effect
meant make it more like the kindof society that we want to see
in our churches, but now on akind of national level. And so
if you weren't in that group,you were in a problematic
(06:39):
position. And Jews in particularhad been a subject of
persecution precisely becausethey were never going to be
Christian.
Mark Oppenheimer (06:50):
Henry hadn't stood out in North Carolina
politics, no one objected to himthe first time he won a seat in
the legislature. But now thesecond time around, someone
raised the issue of hisreligion. On December fifth,
1809, North Carolina legislatorHugh Mills made a motion to
vacate Henry seat.
Hugh Mills (07:10):
It is therefore made known that a certain Jacob
Henry, a member of this house,denies the divine authority of
the New Testament, and refusedto take the oath prescribed by
law for his qualification, inviolation of the constitution of
this state.
Mark Oppenheimer (07:28):
Mills had two objections. First, that Henry
denied the authority of the NewTestament. And second that Henry
refused to take the prescribedoath. Here, things get a little
murky, Mills might have meantthat Henry did not swear his
oath on the Christian Bible. Butthere were workarounds in place
for Quakers and for others whorefused to swear oaths. It isn't
(07:53):
clear why Mills introduced themotion at all, was it because he
was a Republican and Henry was aFederalist? It could have been
as simple as an attempt todisqualify a member of the other
party. But Henry seemed to geton with other Republicans, and
some of them rallied to hisdefense. Perhaps Mills had some
sort of grudge against Henry.The next day, Jacob Henry
(08:16):
delivered a speech before theHouse. Here's what he said,
Jacob Henry (08:19):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you cannot see
anything in this religion, todeprive me of my seat in this
house, what may be the religionof Him who made this objection
against me, or whether he hasany religion or not, I am unable
to say. I have never consideredit my duty to pry into the
beliefs of other members of thishouse, if their actions are
upright and conduct just, therest is for their own
(08:42):
consideration, not for mine, Ido not seek to make converts to
my faith, nor do I excludeanyone from my esteem or
friendship, because he and Idiffer in that respect. The same
charity therefore, it is notunreasonable to expect will be
extended to myself. Because inall things that relate to the
state, the duties of civil life,I am bound by the same
(09:03):
obligation with my fellowcitizen, nor does any many
subscribe more sincerely thanmyself to the maximum. Whatever
you would that men should dounto you, Do ye so even unto
them for such is the law and theprophets.
Mark Oppenheimer (09:19):
You can hear Henry arguing for Judaism as a
moral religion. It was importantto American Jews that they
presented themselves to theirfellow citizens this way. And it
was a pretty slick move to quoteJesus's version of the golden
rule that may or may not havebeen Henry's idea. Rumor has it
that one of his political allieswrote the speech for him. The
(09:40):
North Carolina House of Commonsdiscussed all sorts of questions
about Henry's faith. Had anyoneever seen him in synagogue?
Unlikely because North CarolinaJews hadn't built one yet.
Someone claimed he'd seen Henryat Baptist and Methodist
meetings. Did Henry eat pork? Noone knew. In fact, no one came
forward with any informationabout Henry's religious
(10:00):
principles and practices. TheClerk of the House of Commons
did testify that Henry wished toswear his oath on an Old
Testament. Still, Jacob Henrywas a Jew. So it was a pretty
clear cut case. Or was it? As itturned out, the House
overwhelmingly rejected Mills'smotion, and Henry kept his
(10:21):
seat.Why? Again, it's notentirely clear.
One representative argued thatthe restrictions on Office
holding didn't apply to thelegislature. Anyway, Henry
finished his term, and then heapparently retired from state
politics. He served in the Warof 1812 and later moved to
Charleston, South Carolina,which had one of the largest
Jewish populations in thecountry.
(10:48):
North Carolina, however, keptthe restrictions in its
constitution, and Henry'sdefenders did not argue in favor
of changing them. Nor did thelegislators argue that Jews
should be able to hold office inNorth Carolina. They seated
Henry on a technicality. Itwasn't until 1868 that North
Carolina permitted nonChristians to hold office. Today
(11:10):
its constitution stilldisqualifies from office quote
"anyone who shall deny the beingof Almighty God," that
prohibition wouldn't hold up incourt, but it's still on the
books. So what's the meaning ofthe Jacob Henry case? Is it an
instance of anti Jewish bigotry?Or is it a triumph for religious
(11:30):
liberty for the inclusion ofJews as full citizens in the New
Republic? History rarely lets ustell such straightforward
stories. Let's leave it at this.The status of Jews as citizens
in the early American republicwas murky. Jews had religious
liberty but their status ascitizens remained unclear. Based
on the laws on the books in manystates, Jews did not have a
(11:52):
guaranteed right to fullparticipation as citizens. But
until those laws were tested, itwas unclear whether anyone would
enforce them. So when Jews likeHenry ran for office, they
forced the issue, they put theirfellow citizens to the test.
One key to understanding thisparadox is the larger history of
(12:12):
emancipation in Europe and theUnited States. Emancipation
refers to a political process inwhich a group of people is
released from politicaldisabilities and gets their
equality under the law. In theUnited States, we tend to
associate the word emancipationwith African Americans during
the Civil War, and the 1863Emancipation Proclamation. Two
(12:35):
years later, that freedom wasguaranteed to all under the 13th
amendment. And as important asthe end of slavery was, it was
just as important that blackpeople became full citizens.
Citizenship for black people wassupposed to be guaranteed by the
14th amendment, and the right tovote by the 15th Amendment. But
in practice, those rights wereoften denied. And it took
(12:58):
another century of strugglebefore Black Americans could
hope for the state to safeguardtheir rights. In other words,
full emancipation was a process,not an event. Now, Jews were
never enslaved in the UnitedStates. In fact, like Jacob
Henry, there were Jews who ownedslaves. But Jews in the United
(13:18):
States had not been and were notyet fully equal citizens. Here's
historian David Sorkin, authorof the book Jewish Emancipation.
David Sorkin (13:27):
Emancipation isn't a word, for Americans, that's
usually connected to Jews, orfor that matter, other religious
groups. But in European history,emancipation does apply to the
sphere of religion. The dominantreligion in a society would have
(13:50):
the right of public worship,meaning to say could have a
church with a spire and bellsand could have public
processions.
A religion in an inferiorposition could have the right of
private worship, which meant nospires, no bells and no public
(14:15):
processions. And then the lowestform of worship was called
domestic observance where theadherents of a religious group
could just meet in someone'shome in small groups. And Jews
were slotted into thathierarchy, political status of
(14:37):
religious groups, many casesthey only had the right of
domestic observance or privateobservance. What emancipation
came to mean in Europe was therelease of religious groups from
a status of politicalinferiority. So take the case of
(15:00):
England, for example, allProtestant dissenters, non
Anglican Protestant groups,Catholics, and Jews were in a
position of politicalinferiority until the end of the
18th. And the beginning of the19th century. Protestant
dissenters gained equality.Catholics in England only gained
(15:22):
political equality and the rightof public worship in 1829. And
that was called Catholicemancipation. And that's where
the term came from, that wasthen applied more generally to
Jews. Jews only gainedemancipation in England in 1858,
(15:46):
when the first Jew was allowedto take a seat in the House of
Commons and become a member ofParliament, and that sort of
process appeared across Europe,of minority or dissenting
religions, gaining politicalequality, usually Christian
(16:08):
groups first then followed byJews. So emancipation in Europe,
was applied to religious groupsand meant the attainment of
political equality.
Mark Oppenheimer (16:24):
Jews in Europe were not treated as individual
citizens in Livorno in Italy, orBordeaux, France, or Hamburg,
Germany, Jews were treated asmembers of communities, they
were collectively given certainrights through charters. But
both Europe and North Americaexperienced a huge political
shift brought on by the AmericanRevolution, the French
(16:44):
Revolution and other revolutionsthat swept across Europe. New
states, like the United States,or North Carolina in the United
States, stopped giving rights tospecific communities and started
thinking of rights as somethingthat belonged to individual
citizens equal under the law.Think back for a moment to all
that legalese from the NorthCarolina constitution. Now that
(17:05):
we understand how Jewishemancipation unfolded in Europe
and the US, the Constitutionshould make more sense. The
North Carolina constitution wasin one sense modern, there was
no longer an official statechurch in North Carolina, there
was a measure of religiousfreedom. But the Constitution
also referred to groups ofpeople with different degrees of
(17:26):
citizenship. Even if thelanguage was about people who
believed in God in the Bible, hewas clear that Protestants as a
group were meant to have fullrights of citizenship, and
Catholics and Jews were not. Orwas it clear? Just because
something is written down in thelaw books doesn't mean the law
is actually applied. Accordingto the plain meaning of the
North Carolina constitution,Catholics weren't supposed to
(17:48):
even be in the legislature. Butthere were at least two
Catholics in that legislature.We know that because when Jacob
Henry was denied his seat, theCatholics spoke up to support
him. Henry decided that Jewsshould have the full rights of
citizenship. So he ran foroffice and served his term in
1808. Then he won again in 1809.And when he was denied his seat,
he argued that Jews could begood citizens.
(18:11):
Here's historian David Sorkin.
David Sorkin (18:13):
I can't emphasize too strongly, Jews had to
mobilize whether it'sindividuals or collectively in
order to gain political rightsat the state level in the early
19th century. And I say thatbecause conventional histories,
or conventional accounts ofAmerican Jewish history, tend to
(18:37):
discount these events, and notto see them as part of a larger
struggle for emancipation, butto see them as kind of anomalies
that really don't quite fit intowhat has come to be called
American Jewish exceptionalism.This notion that Jews in the
(18:59):
United States had equal rightsfrom the start under the federal
constitution, and unlike inEurope, never had to struggle to
gain rights and equality andcitizenship. And I think that
simply isn't the case. It's justthat historians of American
Jewry have been reluctant to tryand take what looks like a very
(19:23):
mild process and compare it toits European counterparts.
Mark Oppenheimer (19:31):
The point is Henry's case was messy, and that
messiness is one part of thestory. But so is the way that
Jews argued over and over forthe rights of citizens. Let's
consider what was happening inMaryland at roughly the same
time. As in North Carolina,Maryland, didn't have many Jews,
but there were some and theMaryland constitution didn't
explicitly bar Jews from holdingoffice, but it did include a
(19:54):
religious test that excludedthem. Maryland's Jews had to
petition over and over for theright to hold office. A so
called Jew bill was introducedin the legislature to allow us
to hold office but it failed in1802. And it failed again in
1804. And in 1819, and in 1822.It wasn't until 1825 that the
(20:16):
bill was passed, and Jews couldtake office the next year. Or
let's consider what washappening in Philadelphia.
David Sorkin (20:24):
Once again, this is about a test act, that you
have to take an oath in order tohave political rights. The test
read as follows "I doacknowledge the scriptures of
the Old and New Testament to begiven by divine inspiration".
And a group of Jews inPhiladelphia protested against
this thing, quote, this deprivesJews of the most eminent rights
(20:49):
of free men. They wrote apetition which they sent to the
press, but also to thelegislature, in which they said
that this religious test was,quote, a stigma upon their
nation and religion. And thenthey made the same kind of
argument that Jacob Henry wouldmake later on. A legal argument
(21:10):
that this contradicted thePennsylvania Declaration of
Rights, which had declared thatquote, no man who acknowledges
the being of a god can be justlydeprived or abridged of any
civil rights as a citizen, onaccount of his religious
sentiments. So what they'repointing to is a contradiction
(21:31):
in the laws of Pennsylvaniaitself, between its declaration
of rights and the way that thoserights are being implemented. So
first, they make that legalargument. And then they go on to
make the argument for theirworthiness for rights, that they
are upstanding citizens. Theysay they've earned their rights
(21:51):
by being conscientious,taxpaying property owners and
merchants. Then they also appealto their service to the
revolution. And they argue thatthey serve the revolution in
both blood and treasure theyserved in the Army, and they
donated money. We see the samekind of argumentation. But this
(22:15):
is actually a case of collectivepolitical action, where a group
of Jews are acting together,writing a petition submitting it
to the newspapers and submittingit to the legislature,
Mark Oppenheimer (22:29):
Different state but same story. Even as
the United States was startingto think more and more in terms
of individual rights, the olderidea of thinking in terms of
groups persisted. The assumptionwas that Protestant Christians
had full rights because theirChristianity made them moral,
and that Jews did not have fullrights because they didn't have
the morality of Protestantism.But Jews individually and
(22:53):
collectively appealed for theirrights. And bit by bit, they got
them. Jacob Henry understoodwhat was at stake. Let's hear
his words.
Jacob Henry (23:03):
Shall this free country try to set an example of
persecution, which even thereturning reason of enslaved
Europe would not submit to? Willyou bind the conscious in chains
and fasten conviction upon themind in spite of the conclusions
of reason, and of these ties andhabits which are blended with
every possible of the heart? Areyou prepared to plunge at once
(23:24):
from the supply and height ofmoral legislation into the dark
and gloomy caverns of ignorance?Will you drive from your shores
and from the shelter of yourconstitutions, all who do not
lay their obligations on thesame altar, observe the same
rituals, and subscribe to thesame dogmas?
Mark Oppenheimer (23:40):
But at the same time that Henry was making
that speech standing up for thepolitical rights of Jews, all
over the country, thousands ofAmericans were giving money to a
group of Christians who wantedto convert Jews to make them
Christians. More on that afterthe break.
(24:04):
Imagine a farm where a group ofimmigrant Jews are trying to
live collectively and supportone another. Did you imagine a
kibbutz in Israel, a small farmin the Eastern European
wilderness? Try imagining thatfarm in upstate New York and the
farm is not run by Jews, butrather by Christian missionaries
(24:25):
who want to convert them. Well,maybe not exactly convert them
just meliorate or improve theircondition. It's a phrase that
was only slightly less awkwardin the 19th century than it is
today. I'm talking about theAmerican Society for Meliorating
the Condition of the Jews.That's a mouthful, so let's just
(24:46):
call it the ASMCJ or just thesociety. In the early 19th
century, this society was anexample of the benevolence
movement. At that moment inAmerican history Americans loved
to join organizations. We mightcall many of these organizations
philanthropic, today, we mightcall them charitable. But in the
(25:07):
19th century, they were oftencalled benevolent societies or
benevolent organizations, andthat word benevolence carried a
very Christian connotation. Someof these groups aimed their
benevolence at Jews. Take theFemale Society of Boston and the
Vicinity for PromotingChristianity Amongst the Jews,
founded in 1816. For 52 centsper year, or $10 for a lifetime
(25:31):
membership, you could join withother like minded women in the
hopes of converting Jews. Or youmight correspond with the older
and rather better funded Londonsociety for promoting
Christianity among Jews. But ifyou were worried about the
salvation of American Jews, yourbest bet was to send your money
to the American Society forMeliorating the Condition of the
Jews. To help us untangle all ofthis, here's Susanna Linsley
(25:57):
author of the article Saving theJews.
Susanna Linsley (26:00):
New York in the 1820s, was a time of a lot of
interdenominational cooperationand collaboration. The American
Board of Commissioners offoreign missions was founded in
1810, the American Bible Societyin 1816, The New York Missionary
Society was really popular andthen the American Colonization
Society was 1817. So this was areal milieu, a real environment
(26:25):
of, of trying to find ways fordifferent Christian
denominations to work together,to spread the gospel, to spread
the word and to find ways tocome together around their own
differences. And so the AmericanSociety to Meliorate the
Condition Among the Jews was away to celebrate this unique
(26:45):
position that many Americanpolitical and religious elite
found themselves in at, theywere in a position to usher in a
new era of cooperation that hadnever been possible before. And
they were really excited aboutthis time, about how tolerant
they were, about how acceptingthey were. And so many of them
(27:06):
thought the best way to reallycelebrate and demonstrate just
how tolerant they were, was totry to convert as many Jews as
possible to Christianity.
Unknown (27:15):
Protestants wanted Jews to become Christians, because
well, they wanted everyone tobecome Christian. And
evangelical Christians,including those who created the
society had a real activiststreak, they were always forming
institutions to do everythingfrom print Bibles, to promoting
temperance to end theconsumption of alcohol. But
there was more to it than that.It's fair to say that
(27:38):
evangelicals can get, shall wesay, a little obsessed with
Jews.
Susanna Linsley (27:43):
There were several different reasons. A lot
of the people involved had areal sympathy for Christian
Zionism, or restorationism,where they believed that the
Second Coming wasn't possibleuntil Jews were restored to
Israel. But in an Americancontext, both Protestants and
(28:05):
Jews were optimistic that a newZion was possible and that New
Zion was possible in the UnitedStates. And so bringing Jews
into the United States, andbringing them into Christianity
was a way to bring about thesecond coming. The Protestant
conviction to evangelize theJews was rooted in anti semitic
(28:29):
beliefs that Judaism wasn't alegitimate faith. And in fact,
that's why they saw themselvesas so liberal and tolerant,
right? We're so liberal andtolerant, then we're going to
overlook all of the issues wehave with the Jews, and
acknowledge that they, in fact,can be Christian.
Mark Oppenheimer (28:44):
In other words, evangelicals and other
Protestants in early Americaweren't like the scientific
racists we'll discuss in laterepisodes, who believed that to
be Jewish was in the blood andcould never change. To the
contrary, they assumed thatbeing Jewish was a matter of
religion, and so Jews could justchange if they became Christian.
And if you'll recall ourdiscussion of Jacob Henry, the
(29:05):
general assumption was thatChristianity made you more
moral, and being moral was arequirement for being a citizen.
Had Henry just converted toChristianity, no one would have
been able to suggest that hewasn't qualified to hold office
on religious grounds. Being aChristian, they could trust that
he was moral, that he wasvirtuous, that he was fit to be
a legislator.
(29:28):
So a group of Christians basedin New York formed a society to
evangelize and colonize theJews. The idea was to support
Jews who had already convertedto Christianity, whether in
Europe or the United States, andto have a colony or farm where
they could live. Their thinkingwas that Jews who converted to
Christianity would be cast outof their own communities and
need support. Some pretty heavyhitters supported the society.
(29:53):
John Quincy Adams was anhonorary vice president at the
same time that he was Secretaryof State of the whole country.
The presidents of Princeton,Yale and Rutgers all at one time
or another served on thesociety's board. The mere fact
the society was incorporated byNew York is significant.
Incorporation offered legal andfinancial protections. And the
state only gave these privilegesto institutions that it thought
(30:16):
were advancing the public good.Susanna Linsley explains.
Susanna Linsley (30:19):
When this society incorporated it became
legally recognized under NewYork law. And the New York State
legislature didn't want tolegally recognize a corporation
that was built aroundevangelizing, or at least that
had it listed so specifically inits name. And because of that,
(30:40):
the society how to find a namethat would be more palatable to
the New York government and infact more legal, and so came to
the name the Society forMeliorating the Condition of the
Jews.
Mark Oppenheimer (30:53):
The Society of course continued to try to
convert Jews. You could say thatconversion would be a complete
and total melioration.Uninterested in being converted,
Jewish publications attacked thesociety.
Susanna Linsley (31:09):
Solomon Henry Jackson was a notable Jewish
printer. He was interestingbecause he married outside the
faith, he married a woman whowas Presbyterian, but he raised
his five children in the Jewishfaith. The he started a
newspaper in direct response tothe ASMCJ's paper, Israel's
(31:31):
Advocate and his paper he calledThe Jew: Being a Defense of
Judaism Against all Adversaries,and Particularly Against the
Insidious Attacks of Israel'sAdvocate. And Jackson was
outraged by the society'sconviction that its mission
represented a new era ofcooperation. And he called their
(31:53):
bluff that they treated Jewswith respect. He called them out
he said that society stillmarked Jews as he said, they
marked them as stricken, smittenand afflicted by God. Jackson
reminded this society, ourpersecutions, exiles and
massacres always began in thevery manner and plan that you're
pursuing now, by bribing themwith land by giving resources to
(32:17):
support conversion. And he wassaying this society is doing
nothing new. This is using thesame tricks that Christians have
used for centuries to violentlystrip Jews of their faith. And
he was a real firebrand he wasreally angry about this.
Unknown (32:34):
So what effect did the society have in the world? If
its goals were to convert Jewsto Christianity, the results
were pretty dismal.
Susanna Linsley (32:41):
It's success to evangelize and colonize Jews was
very small. There were sevenconverts. The organization was
never able to establish acolony.
Unknown (32:53):
A lot of the society's problems were due to squabbling
within its leadership. Theirlead missionary, Joseph Samuel
Christian Frederick Frey, wasaccused of financial impropriety
not to mention generalineffectiveness, this society
puttered along for a few decadesbefore closing shop. Jewish
newspapers might have laughed athow much money the ASMCJ raised
(33:15):
to convert a few Jews toChristianity. But in another
sense, the Society forMeliorating the Condition of the
Jews was a smashing successbecause it raised a lot of
money.
Mark Oppenheimer (33:26):
And how did it do that?
Susanna Linsley (33:29):
The organization itself did have
some significant success. It wasfounded in 1820. And men and
women from every majorProtestant denomination joined
auxilary societies and madedonations for the project.
Between March and April of 1824,there were auxilary societies
(33:51):
started within Baptist,Methodist, Presbyterian,
Congregationalists, and Lutherancongregations. In Charleston,
South Carolina in 1824, theycollected $626 for the mission.
In 1823, the society hadassembled 46 auxiliary societies
(34:11):
in 12 states. And by 1825, thenumber had ballooned to 231. And
by the end of the society in1827, Frey had reported
organizing over 400 localbranches.
Mark Oppenheimer (34:31):
So the society may not have succeeded in
converting many Jews. But thenChristians had been failing to
convert Jews for 1800 years bythis point. Where they did
succeed was in convincingthousands and thousands of
people spread across 400 localbranches to give money to
convert Jews. And those peoplegave money because they thought
Jews would be damned to hell ifthey didn't convert to
(34:53):
Christianity. But they also gavemoney because they believe that
Christianity and not Judaism hadto be the basis of the American
Republic. So yes, it's true thatonly one legislator tried to
stand in the way of Jacob Henryholding office in North
Carolina. But for everylegislator like that, there were
(35:16):
many, many more people willingto donate money to try to turn
Jews like Jacob Henry intoChristian citizens. And the
reason Henry kept hislegislative seat, and one of the
reasons that the society managedto convert only seven Jews was
that American Jews stood up fortheir rights. They claimed that
(35:36):
Jews should have the full rightsof citizens at a time when they
were excluded as a class frompolitical office and other civil
rights. And when their fellowcitizens tried to make them
Christians for the good of thenation, as well as to save their
eternal souls, Jews pointed outthat their own religion was
perfectly good, and making themmoral citizens.
(36:04):
Thank you for listening toAntisemitism, U.S.A. it's a
production of R2 Studios part ofthe Roy Rosenzweig Center for
History and New Media at GeorgeMason University. Visit
R2studios.org for a completetranscript of today's episode
and for suggestions for furtherreading. I'm your host Mark
Oppenheimer. Antisemitism U.S.A.is written by John Turner and
Lincoln Mullen. Britt Tevis isour lead scholar Jim Ambuske is
(36:25):
our producer, Jeanette Patrickis our executive producer. We'd
like to thank Zev Eleff forbeing our lead advisor and we'd
like to thank our advisory boardmembers Laura Shaw Frank,
Riv-Ellen Prell, and JonathanSarno. Our graduate assistants
are Rachel Birch, AlexandraMiller, and Amber Pelham. Our
thanks to David Sehat, DavidSorkin, and Susannah Linsley for
sharing their expertise with usin this episode. We're able to
(36:47):
bring you this show through thegenerosity of the Henry Luce
Foundation, the David BruceSmith Foundation, and many
individual donors like you.Thank you for listening, and we
hope you'll join us for the nextepisode.
Support for Antisemitism, U.S.A. comes from
the Henry Luce Foundation andthe David Bruce Smith
Foundation.
Mark Oppenheimer (00:09):
Jacob Henry and his wife, Esther were
prosperous. Henry owned severalhundred acres of land and 12
slaves. Jacob and Esther had ahome near the waterfront. In
1809, Jacob Henry won reelectionto the North Carolina
legislature, where herepresented the citizens of
(00:32):
Carteret County. Henry was aFederalist, but it was the
Republicans, the party of ThomasJefferson and the newly
inaugurated President JamesMadison, who had a large
majority in the statelegislature. After his
reelection, Henry traveled toRaleigh and took his oath of
office. And then, two weekslater, he got a rude shock. One
(00:56):
of his fellow legislators fileda motion to vacate his seat. In
other words, they wanted to kickHenry out. The objection was on
religious grounds. Jacob Henrywas a Jew.
(01:20):
I'm Mark Oppenheimer, and thisis Antisemitism, U.S.A., a
podcast about the history ofanti semitism in the United
States. This is episode two,Moral Citizens. In the early
years of the country, onlycertain kinds of virtuous people
were believed to be capable ofself governance, and whom did
(01:41):
Americans consider virtuous?Protestant Christians, not
Catholics, not atheists, andcertainly not Jews. In this
episode, we'll look at how Jewswere excluded from holding
political office. And then we'llturn to a 19th century society
that attempted to convert Jewsto Christianity to make them
(02:02):
into moral citizens. But fornow, let's get back to Jacob
Henry in North Carolinapolitics. North Carolina's state
constitution of 1776 declaredthat "all persons shall be at
liberty to exercise their ownmode of worship." before the
American Revolution, the Churchof England became established as
(02:23):
the official Church of NorthCarolina. But the state
constitution there made it clearthat no one would be forced to
pay for the church or attend anyplace of worship that was
against their own faith andjudgment. So why would the
legislature even considerdenying Jacob Henry his seat,
Henry had won the election fairand square, nobody doubted that.
(02:45):
Here's historian David Sehat,author of The Myth of American
Religious Freedom
David Sehat (02:51):
At least early on in American history, a lot of
times rights were connected toyour religious beliefs. various
states in the early republiclimited voting, for example, to
either Protestants, orChristians, or theists. And that
last category would includeJews, but the first two would
not. There were variouslimitations on who could run for
(03:13):
office. And these limitationswere sometimes explicit, like we
just don't allow Jews to run foroffice, or they were implicit in
that you had to take an oaththat was a Christian oath that
affirmed the divinity of Jesusand the divine inspiration of
the Old and the New Testaments,which would obviously exclude
Jews. So really, in all the waysin which you encounter the
(03:33):
state, if you pair a religiousobligation, or a religious
identity to interacting with thestate, you put those who are
outside that identity atdisadvantage and Jews were
frequently at disadvantage.
Mark Oppenheimer (03:47):
The problem Henry faced was that in North
Carolina in 1809, the stateconstitution barred Jews from
office even though it didn'tmention them. The article said,
North Carolina 1809 Constitution (03:59):
that no person who shall deny the
being of God, or the truth ofthe Protestant religion, or the
divine authority, either of theOld or New Testament, or who
shall hold religious principlesincompatible with the freedom
and safety of the state shall becapable of holding any office or
place of trust or profit in thecivil department within this
(04:21):
state.
Mark Oppenheimer (04:23):
So to hold office in North Carolina, the
state constitution required youto be a Protestant. It also
required you to believe both theOld and New Testaments. So while
a Jewish person might have beenable to claim truthfully, that
they believed in the Bible, theywouldn't think of the New
Testament as being divine. Whilethe United States Constitution
(04:44):
banned this sort of religioustest for federal office holding,
it wasn't until the middle ofthe 20th century that the
Supreme Court applied thefederal prohibition to the
states. The authors of the NorthCarolina constitution believed
in religious liberty. They'dstopped funding their own
Christian churches. Therestriction in their state
constitution was aimed atkeeping Catholics out of office,
(05:06):
because Protestants generallyconsidered Catholicism to be
incompatible with Liberty. In1776, when North Carolina
adopted its new constitution,there were maybe 2000 Jews
living in the United States. Butwhen Protestants thought about
groups they didn't want votingor in government, they thought
about Catholics as well as anadditional trifecta of Jews,
(05:29):
Mohamedans, which meant Muslims,and infidels, whom today we
might call atheists.
Unknown (05:36):
What happened when states stopped paying churches
is that many religious groupsinstead turned to morality as a
proxy to maintain religiouscontrol. So they would write
their moral ideals into law, andthereby shape the public
contours of American culture andof American society. And this
(05:56):
then gave American culturethroughout the 19th century a
kind of Protestant feel or vibe,because in many ways, the
official public moralityenforceable by the law and in
government was Protestant, itcame out of Protestant
sensibilities, it reinforcedProtestant moral ideas, and it
ultimately gave Protestantscontrol over that society to a
(06:18):
large degree. Protestants inparticular believed that once
you became a Christian, therewas an obligation to redeem or
sanctify society and to make itmore Christian which in effect
meant make it more like the kindof society that we want to see
in our churches, but now on akind of national level. And so
if you weren't in that group,you were in a problematic
(06:39):
position. And Jews in particularhad been a subject of
persecution precisely becausethey were never going to be
Christian.
Mark Oppenheimer (06:50):
Henry hadn't stood out in North Carolina
politics, no one objected to himthe first time he won a seat in
the legislature. But now thesecond time around, someone
raised the issue of hisreligion. On December fifth,
1809, North Carolina legislatorHugh Mills made a motion to
vacate Henry seat.
Hugh Mills (07:10):
It is therefore made known that a certain Jacob
Henry, a member of this house,denies the divine authority of
the New Testament, and refusedto take the oath prescribed by
law for his qualification, inviolation of the constitution of
this state.
Mark Oppenheimer (07:28):
Mills had two objections. First, that Henry
denied the authority of the NewTestament. And second that Henry
refused to take the prescribedoath. Here, things get a little
murky, Mills might have meantthat Henry did not swear his
oath on the Christian Bible. Butthere were workarounds in place
for Quakers and for others whorefused to swear oaths. It isn't
(07:53):
clear why Mills introduced themotion at all, was it because he
was a Republican and Henry was aFederalist? It could have been
as simple as an attempt todisqualify a member of the other
party. But Henry seemed to geton with other Republicans, and
some of them rallied to hisdefense. Perhaps Mills had some
sort of grudge against Henry.The next day, Jacob Henry
(08:16):
delivered a speech before theHouse. Here's what he said,
Jacob Henry (08:19):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you cannot see
anything in this religion, todeprive me of my seat in this
house, what may be the religionof Him who made this objection
against me, or whether he hasany religion or not, I am unable
to say. I have never consideredit my duty to pry into the
beliefs of other members of thishouse, if their actions are
upright and conduct just, therest is for their own
(08:42):
consideration, not for mine, Ido not seek to make converts to
my faith, nor do I excludeanyone from my esteem or
friendship, because he and Idiffer in that respect. The same
charity therefore, it is notunreasonable to expect will be
extended to myself. Because inall things that relate to the
state, the duties of civil life,I am bound by the same
(09:03):
obligation with my fellowcitizen, nor does any many
subscribe more sincerely thanmyself to the maximum. Whatever
you would that men should dounto you, Do ye so even unto
them for such is the law and theprophets.
Mark Oppenheimer (09:19):
You can hear Henry arguing for Judaism as a
moral religion. It was importantto American Jews that they
presented themselves to theirfellow citizens this way. And it
was a pretty slick move to quoteJesus's version of the golden
rule that may or may not havebeen Henry's idea. Rumor has it
that one of his political allieswrote the speech for him. The
(09:40):
North Carolina House of Commonsdiscussed all sorts of questions
about Henry's faith. Had anyoneever seen him in synagogue?
Unlikely because North CarolinaJews hadn't built one yet.
Someone claimed he'd seen Henryat Baptist and Methodist
meetings. Did Henry eat pork? Noone knew. In fact, no one came
forward with any informationabout Henry's religious
(10:00):
principles and practices. TheClerk of the House of Commons
did testify that Henry wished toswear his oath on an Old
Testament. Still, Jacob Henrywas a Jew. So it was a pretty
clear cut case. Or was it? As itturned out, the House
overwhelmingly rejected Mills'smotion, and Henry kept his
(10:21):
seat.Why? Again, it's notentirely clear.
One representative argued thatthe restrictions on Office
holding didn't apply to thelegislature. Anyway, Henry
finished his term, and then heapparently retired from state
politics. He served in the Warof 1812 and later moved to
Charleston, South Carolina,which had one of the largest
Jewish populations in thecountry.
(10:48):
North Carolina, however, keptthe restrictions in its
constitution, and Henry'sdefenders did not argue in favor
of changing them. Nor did thelegislators argue that Jews
should be able to hold office inNorth Carolina. They seated
Henry on a technicality. Itwasn't until 1868 that North
Carolina permitted nonChristians to hold office. Today
(11:10):
its constitution stilldisqualifies from office quote
"anyone who shall deny the beingof Almighty God," that
prohibition wouldn't hold up incourt, but it's still on the
books. So what's the meaning ofthe Jacob Henry case? Is it an
instance of anti Jewish bigotry?Or is it a triumph for religious
(11:30):
liberty for the inclusion ofJews as full citizens in the New
Republic? History rarely lets ustell such straightforward
stories. Let's leave it at this.The status of Jews as citizens
in the early American republicwas murky. Jews had religious
liberty but their status ascitizens remained unclear. Based
on the laws on the books in manystates, Jews did not have a
(11:52):
guaranteed right to fullparticipation as citizens. But
until those laws were tested, itwas unclear whether anyone would
enforce them. So when Jews likeHenry ran for office, they
forced the issue, they put theirfellow citizens to the test.
One key to understanding thisparadox is the larger history of
(12:12):
emancipation in Europe and theUnited States. Emancipation
refers to a political process inwhich a group of people is
released from politicaldisabilities and gets their
equality under the law. In theUnited States, we tend to
associate the word emancipationwith African Americans during
the Civil War, and the 1863Emancipation Proclamation. Two
(12:35):
years later, that freedom wasguaranteed to all under the 13th
amendment. And as important asthe end of slavery was, it was
just as important that blackpeople became full citizens.
Citizenship for black people wassupposed to be guaranteed by the
14th amendment, and the right tovote by the 15th Amendment. But
in practice, those rights wereoften denied. And it took
(12:58):
another century of strugglebefore Black Americans could
hope for the state to safeguardtheir rights. In other words,
full emancipation was a process,not an event. Now, Jews were
never enslaved in the UnitedStates. In fact, like Jacob
Henry, there were Jews who ownedslaves. But Jews in the United
(13:18):
States had not been and were notyet fully equal citizens. Here's
historian David Sorkin, authorof the book Jewish Emancipation.
David Sorkin (13:27):
Emancipation isn't a word, for Americans, that's
usually connected to Jews, orfor that matter, other religious
groups. But in European history,emancipation does apply to the
sphere of religion. The dominantreligion in a society would have
(13:50):
the right of public worship,meaning to say could have a
church with a spire and bellsand could have public
processions.
A religion in an inferiorposition could have the right of
private worship, which meant nospires, no bells and no public
(14:15):
processions. And then the lowestform of worship was called
domestic observance where theadherents of a religious group
could just meet in someone'shome in small groups. And Jews
were slotted into thathierarchy, political status of
(14:37):
religious groups, many casesthey only had the right of
domestic observance or privateobservance. What emancipation
came to mean in Europe was therelease of religious groups from
a status of politicalinferiority. So take the case of
(15:00):
England, for example, allProtestant dissenters, non
Anglican Protestant groups,Catholics, and Jews were in a
position of politicalinferiority until the end of the
18th. And the beginning of the19th century. Protestant
dissenters gained equality.Catholics in England only gained
(15:22):
political equality and the rightof public worship in 1829. And
that was called Catholicemancipation. And that's where
the term came from, that wasthen applied more generally to
Jews. Jews only gainedemancipation in England in 1858,
(15:46):
when the first Jew was allowedto take a seat in the House of
Commons and become a member ofParliament, and that sort of
process appeared across Europe,of minority or dissenting
religions, gaining politicalequality, usually Christian
(16:08):
groups first then followed byJews. So emancipation in Europe,
was applied to religious groupsand meant the attainment of
political equality.
Mark Oppenheimer (16:24):
Jews in Europe were not treated as individual
citizens in Livorno in Italy, orBordeaux, France, or Hamburg,
Germany, Jews were treated asmembers of communities, they
were collectively given certainrights through charters. But
both Europe and North Americaexperienced a huge political
shift brought on by the AmericanRevolution, the French
(16:44):
Revolution and other revolutionsthat swept across Europe. New
states, like the United States,or North Carolina in the United
States, stopped giving rights tospecific communities and started
thinking of rights as somethingthat belonged to individual
citizens equal under the law.Think back for a moment to all
that legalese from the NorthCarolina constitution. Now that
(17:05):
we understand how Jewishemancipation unfolded in Europe
and the US, the Constitutionshould make more sense. The
North Carolina constitution wasin one sense modern, there was
no longer an official statechurch in North Carolina, there
was a measure of religiousfreedom. But the Constitution
also referred to groups ofpeople with different degrees of
(17:26):
citizenship. Even if thelanguage was about people who
believed in God in the Bible, hewas clear that Protestants as a
group were meant to have fullrights of citizenship, and
Catholics and Jews were not. Orwas it clear? Just because
something is written down in thelaw books doesn't mean the law
is actually applied. Accordingto the plain meaning of the
North Carolina constitution,Catholics weren't supposed to
(17:48):
even be in the legislature. Butthere were at least two
Catholics in that legislature.We know that because when Jacob
Henry was denied his seat, theCatholics spoke up to support
him. Henry decided that Jewsshould have the full rights of
citizenship. So he ran foroffice and served his term in
1808. Then he won again in 1809.And when he was denied his seat,
he argued that Jews could begood citizens.
(18:11):
Here's historian David Sorkin.
David Sorkin (18:13):
I can't emphasize too strongly, Jews had to
mobilize whether it'sindividuals or collectively in
order to gain political rightsat the state level in the early
19th century. And I say thatbecause conventional histories,
or conventional accounts ofAmerican Jewish history, tend to
(18:37):
discount these events, and notto see them as part of a larger
struggle for emancipation, butto see them as kind of anomalies
that really don't quite fit intowhat has come to be called
American Jewish exceptionalism.This notion that Jews in the
(18:59):
United States had equal rightsfrom the start under the federal
constitution, and unlike inEurope, never had to struggle to
gain rights and equality andcitizenship. And I think that
simply isn't the case. It's justthat historians of American
Jewry have been reluctant to tryand take what looks like a very
(19:23):
mild process and compare it toits European counterparts.
Mark Oppenheimer (19:31):
The point is Henry's case was messy, and that
messiness is one part of thestory. But so is the way that
Jews argued over and over forthe rights of citizens. Let's
consider what was happening inMaryland at roughly the same
time. As in North Carolina,Maryland, didn't have many Jews,
but there were some and theMaryland constitution didn't
explicitly bar Jews from holdingoffice, but it did include a
(19:54):
religious test that excludedthem. Maryland's Jews had to
petition over and over for theright to hold office. A so
called Jew bill was introducedin the legislature to allow us
to hold office but it failed in1802. And it failed again in
1804. And in 1819, and in 1822.It wasn't until 1825 that the
(20:16):
bill was passed, and Jews couldtake office the next year. Or
let's consider what washappening in Philadelphia.
David Sorkin (20:24):
Once again, this is about a test act, that you
have to take an oath in order tohave political rights. The test
read as follows "I doacknowledge the scriptures of
the Old and New Testament to begiven by divine inspiration".
And a group of Jews inPhiladelphia protested against
this thing, quote, this deprivesJews of the most eminent rights
(20:49):
of free men. They wrote apetition which they sent to the
press, but also to thelegislature, in which they said
that this religious test was,quote, a stigma upon their
nation and religion. And thenthey made the same kind of
argument that Jacob Henry wouldmake later on. A legal argument
(21:10):
that this contradicted thePennsylvania Declaration of
Rights, which had declared thatquote, no man who acknowledges
the being of a god can be justlydeprived or abridged of any
civil rights as a citizen, onaccount of his religious
sentiments. So what they'repointing to is a contradiction
(21:31):
in the laws of Pennsylvaniaitself, between its declaration
of rights and the way that thoserights are being implemented. So
first, they make that legalargument. And then they go on to
make the argument for theirworthiness for rights, that they
are upstanding citizens. Theysay they've earned their rights
(21:51):
by being conscientious,taxpaying property owners and
merchants. Then they also appealto their service to the
revolution. And they argue thatthey serve the revolution in
both blood and treasure theyserved in the Army, and they
donated money. We see the samekind of argumentation. But this
(22:15):
is actually a case of collectivepolitical action, where a group
of Jews are acting together,writing a petition submitting it
to the newspapers and submittingit to the legislature,
Mark Oppenheimer (22:29):
Different state but same story. Even as
the United States was startingto think more and more in terms
of individual rights, the olderidea of thinking in terms of
groups persisted. The assumptionwas that Protestant Christians
had full rights because theirChristianity made them moral,
and that Jews did not have fullrights because they didn't have
the morality of Protestantism.But Jews individually and
(22:53):
collectively appealed for theirrights. And bit by bit, they got
them. Jacob Henry understoodwhat was at stake. Let's hear
his words.
Jacob Henry (23:03):
Shall this free country try to set an example of
persecution, which even thereturning reason of enslaved
Europe would not submit to? Willyou bind the conscious in chains
and fasten conviction upon themind in spite of the conclusions
of reason, and of these ties andhabits which are blended with
every possible of the heart? Areyou prepared to plunge at once
(23:24):
from the supply and height ofmoral legislation into the dark
and gloomy caverns of ignorance?Will you drive from your shores
and from the shelter of yourconstitutions, all who do not
lay their obligations on thesame altar, observe the same
rituals, and subscribe to thesame dogmas?
Mark Oppenheimer (23:40):
But at the same time that Henry was making
that speech standing up for thepolitical rights of Jews, all
over the country, thousands ofAmericans were giving money to a
group of Christians who wantedto convert Jews to make them
Christians. More on that afterthe break.
(24:04):
Imagine a farm where a group ofimmigrant Jews are trying to
live collectively and supportone another. Did you imagine a
kibbutz in Israel, a small farmin the Eastern European
wilderness? Try imagining thatfarm in upstate New York and the
farm is not run by Jews, butrather by Christian missionaries
(24:25):
who want to convert them. Well,maybe not exactly convert them
just meliorate or improve theircondition. It's a phrase that
was only slightly less awkwardin the 19th century than it is
today. I'm talking about theAmerican Society for Meliorating
the Condition of the Jews.That's a mouthful, so let's just
(24:46):
call it the ASMCJ or just thesociety. In the early 19th
century, this society was anexample of the benevolence
movement. At that moment inAmerican history Americans loved
to join organizations. We mightcall many of these organizations
philanthropic, today, we mightcall them charitable. But in the
(25:07):
19th century, they were oftencalled benevolent societies or
benevolent organizations, andthat word benevolence carried a
very Christian connotation. Someof these groups aimed their
benevolence at Jews. Take theFemale Society of Boston and the
Vicinity for PromotingChristianity Amongst the Jews,
founded in 1816. For 52 centsper year, or $10 for a lifetime
(25:31):
membership, you could join withother like minded women in the
hopes of converting Jews. Or youmight correspond with the older
and rather better funded Londonsociety for promoting
Christianity among Jews. But ifyou were worried about the
salvation of American Jews, yourbest bet was to send your money
to the American Society forMeliorating the Condition of the
Jews. To help us untangle all ofthis, here's Susanna Linsley
(25:57):
author of the article Saving theJews.
Susanna Linsley (26:00):
New York in the 1820s, was a time of a lot of
interdenominational cooperationand collaboration. The American
Board of Commissioners offoreign missions was founded in
1810, the American Bible Societyin 1816, The New York Missionary
Society was really popular andthen the American Colonization
Society was 1817. So this was areal milieu, a real environment
(26:25):
of, of trying to find ways fordifferent Christian
denominations to work together,to spread the gospel, to spread
the word and to find ways tocome together around their own
differences. And so the AmericanSociety to Meliorate the
Condition Among the Jews was away to celebrate this unique
(26:45):
position that many Americanpolitical and religious elite
found themselves in at, theywere in a position to usher in a
new era of cooperation that hadnever been possible before. And
they were really excited aboutthis time, about how tolerant
they were, about how acceptingthey were. And so many of them
(27:06):
thought the best way to reallycelebrate and demonstrate just
how tolerant they were, was totry to convert as many Jews as
possible to Christianity.
Unknown (27:15):
Protestants wanted Jews to become Christians, because
well, they wanted everyone tobecome Christian. And
evangelical Christians,including those who created the
society had a real activiststreak, they were always forming
institutions to do everythingfrom print Bibles, to promoting
temperance to end theconsumption of alcohol. But
there was more to it than that.It's fair to say that
(27:38):
evangelicals can get, shall wesay, a little obsessed with
Jews.
Susanna Linsley (27:43):
There were several different reasons. A lot
of the people involved had areal sympathy for Christian
Zionism, or restorationism,where they believed that the
Second Coming wasn't possibleuntil Jews were restored to
Israel. But in an Americancontext, both Protestants and
(28:05):
Jews were optimistic that a newZion was possible and that New
Zion was possible in the UnitedStates. And so bringing Jews
into the United States, andbringing them into Christianity
was a way to bring about thesecond coming. The Protestant
conviction to evangelize theJews was rooted in anti semitic
(28:29):
beliefs that Judaism wasn't alegitimate faith. And in fact,
that's why they saw themselvesas so liberal and tolerant,
right? We're so liberal andtolerant, then we're going to
overlook all of the issues wehave with the Jews, and
acknowledge that they, in fact,can be Christian.
Mark Oppenheimer (28:44):
In other words, evangelicals and other
Protestants in early Americaweren't like the scientific
racists we'll discuss in laterepisodes, who believed that to
be Jewish was in the blood andcould never change. To the
contrary, they assumed thatbeing Jewish was a matter of
religion, and so Jews could justchange if they became Christian.
And if you'll recall ourdiscussion of Jacob Henry, the
(29:05):
general assumption was thatChristianity made you more
moral, and being moral was arequirement for being a citizen.
Had Henry just converted toChristianity, no one would have
been able to suggest that hewasn't qualified to hold office
on religious grounds. Being aChristian, they could trust that
he was moral, that he wasvirtuous, that he was fit to be
a legislator.
(29:28):
So a group of Christians basedin New York formed a society to
evangelize and colonize theJews. The idea was to support
Jews who had already convertedto Christianity, whether in
Europe or the United States, andto have a colony or farm where
they could live. Their thinkingwas that Jews who converted to
Christianity would be cast outof their own communities and
need support. Some pretty heavyhitters supported the society.
(29:53):
John Quincy Adams was anhonorary vice president at the
same time that he was Secretaryof State of the whole country.
The presidents of Princeton,Yale and Rutgers all at one time
or another served on thesociety's board. The mere fact
the society was incorporated byNew York is significant.
Incorporation offered legal andfinancial protections. And the
state only gave these privilegesto institutions that it thought
(30:16):
were advancing the public good.Susanna Linsley explains.
Susanna Linsley (30:19):
When this society incorporated it became
legally recognized under NewYork law. And the New York State
legislature didn't want tolegally recognize a corporation
that was built aroundevangelizing, or at least that
had it listed so specifically inits name. And because of that,
(30:40):
the society how to find a namethat would be more palatable to
the New York government and infact more legal, and so came to
the name the Society forMeliorating the Condition of the
Jews.
Mark Oppenheimer (30:53):
The Society of course continued to try to
convert Jews. You could say thatconversion would be a complete
and total melioration.Uninterested in being converted,
Jewish publications attacked thesociety.
Susanna Linsley (31:09):
Solomon Henry Jackson was a notable Jewish
printer. He was interestingbecause he married outside the
faith, he married a woman whowas Presbyterian, but he raised
his five children in the Jewishfaith. The he started a
newspaper in direct response tothe ASMCJ's paper, Israel's
(31:31):
Advocate and his paper he calledThe Jew: Being a Defense of
Judaism Against all Adversaries,and Particularly Against the
Insidious Attacks of Israel'sAdvocate. And Jackson was
outraged by the society'sconviction that its mission
represented a new era ofcooperation. And he called their
(31:53):
bluff that they treated Jewswith respect. He called them out
he said that society stillmarked Jews as he said, they
marked them as stricken, smittenand afflicted by God. Jackson
reminded this society, ourpersecutions, exiles and
massacres always began in thevery manner and plan that you're
pursuing now, by bribing themwith land by giving resources to
(32:17):
support conversion. And he wassaying this society is doing
nothing new. This is using thesame tricks that Christians have
used for centuries to violentlystrip Jews of their faith. And
he was a real firebrand he wasreally angry about this.
Unknown (32:34):
So what effect did the society have in the world? If
its goals were to convert Jewsto Christianity, the results
were pretty dismal.
Susanna Linsley (32:41):
It's success to evangelize and colonize Jews was
very small. There were sevenconverts. The organization was
never able to establish acolony.
Unknown (32:53):
A lot of the society's problems were due to squabbling
within its leadership. Theirlead missionary, Joseph Samuel
Christian Frederick Frey, wasaccused of financial impropriety
not to mention generalineffectiveness, this society
puttered along for a few decadesbefore closing shop. Jewish
newspapers might have laughed athow much money the ASMCJ raised
(33:15):
to convert a few Jews toChristianity. But in another
sense, the Society forMeliorating the Condition of the
Jews was a smashing successbecause it raised a lot of
money.
Mark Oppenheimer (33:26):
And how did it do that?
Susanna Linsley (33:29):
The organization itself did have
some significant success. It wasfounded in 1820. And men and
women from every majorProtestant denomination joined
auxilary societies and madedonations for the project.
Between March and April of 1824,there were auxilary societies
(33:51):
started within Baptist,Methodist, Presbyterian,
Congregationalists, and Lutherancongregations. In Charleston,
South Carolina in 1824, theycollected $626 for the mission.
In 1823, the society hadassembled 46 auxiliary societies
(34:11):
in 12 states. And by 1825, thenumber had ballooned to 231. And
by the end of the society in1827, Frey had reported
organizing over 400 localbranches.
Mark Oppenheimer (34:31):
So the society may not have succeeded in
converting many Jews. But thenChristians had been failing to
convert Jews for 1800 years bythis point. Where they did
succeed was in convincingthousands and thousands of
people spread across 400 localbranches to give money to
convert Jews. And those peoplegave money because they thought
Jews would be damned to hell ifthey didn't convert to
(34:53):
Christianity. But they also gavemoney because they believe that
Christianity and not Judaism hadto be the basis of the American
Republic. So yes, it's true thatonly one legislator tried to
stand in the way of Jacob Henryholding office in North
Carolina. But for everylegislator like that, there were
(35:16):
many, many more people willingto donate money to try to turn
Jews like Jacob Henry intoChristian citizens. And the
reason Henry kept hislegislative seat, and one of the
reasons that the society managedto convert only seven Jews was
that American Jews stood up fortheir rights. They claimed that
(35:36):
Jews should have the full rightsof citizens at a time when they
were excluded as a class frompolitical office and other civil
rights. And when their fellowcitizens tried to make them
Christians for the good of thenation, as well as to save their
eternal souls, Jews pointed outthat their own religion was
perfectly good, and making themmoral citizens.
(36:04):
Thank you for listening toAntisemitism, U.S.A. it's a
production of R2 Studios part ofthe Roy Rosenzweig Center for
History and New Media at GeorgeMason University. Visit
R2studios.org for a completetranscript of today's episode
and for suggestions for furtherreading. I'm your host Mark
Oppenheimer. Antisemitism U.S.A.is written by John Turner and
Lincoln Mullen. Britt Tevis isour lead scholar Jim Ambuske is
(36:25):
our producer, Jeanette Patrickis our executive producer. We'd
like to thank Zev Eleff forbeing our lead advisor and we'd
like to thank our advisory boardmembers Laura Shaw Frank,
Riv-Ellen Prell, and JonathanSarno. Our graduate assistants
are Rachel Birch, AlexandraMiller, and Amber Pelham. Our
thanks to David Sehat, DavidSorkin, and Susannah Linsley for
sharing their expertise with usin this episode. We're able to
(36:47):
bring you this show through thegenerosity of the Henry Luce
Foundation, the David BruceSmith Foundation, and many
individual donors like you.Thank you for listening, and we
hope you'll join us for the nextepisode.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.