USA > South Carolina > Charleston County > Charleston > The Jews of South Carolina; a survey of the records at present existing in Charleston > Part 10
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13
have been affe to find in New York libra- ries. This was done simply because such a collection may prove both useful and time-saving to others desiring to make further research.
Practically every criticism mentioned in the review is of a frivolous character. Thus, as to the position of Charleston, the reviewer says: "Wir Huhner cannot ever tell that straight." for he calls it the capi- tel of the county of the same name. The use of the wordl "capital" in that connec- rion has been sanctioned by the very best authorities. and hall the reverend gentle- man but raken the trouble to look at the Encyclopaedia Brittanica or Chambers's
Encyclopaedia would have found Charleston designated in
the same way as the Capital of Charleston County. Lest, might argue that these are English publications. I would call atten-
tion to the American Encyclopaedia, Volume 4. published by D. Apnieton & Co. and edited by no less distinguished writers than George Ripley and Charles A. Dana. where he will find that the article on Charleston begins by calling it "the Capi- tal of Charleston County." The same is true of Johnson's Universal Encyclopae- dia, edited by that well known scholar, Charles K. Adams. In fact there is hardly an encyclopaedia of importance that does not call Charleston the capital of Charles- ton County.
My failure to name Levy Sheftall as one of the early members of the Charleston congregation is commented upen, but the reverend gentleman well knows that my essas itself contains several other names besides which are not mentioned in the Encyclopedia article, simply because such ar article must of necessity be condensed. He must also have known that I did not refer to Lindo as a military man and my article on Lindo, already in the hands of the editors of the Encyclopedia. will show that I had quite a little material on that Pre-Revolutionary worthy.
I need not spend any time on his com- ments concerning Francis Salvador. My paper on that patriot, published long since and giving the authorities for the state- ments therein contained, is a sufficient answer. I nass over also the quibbling Ram that there was no such body as a Colonial Assembly in South Carolina. h a "Commons House of Assembly," WŁ.
2
does surprise me, however. is his inter- ence that Salvador never was a member of the Assembly at all. My published pa- per gives the authority for the statement. and I might also call attention to that magnificent work on American history published under the auspices of Congress, edired by no less an authority than Peter Force, namely, the American Archives. In Volume 4. 5th series, of that work, page 620. there appears the title "South Caro- lina General Assembly." The references there to Salvador will convince anyone that he was a member of that body. There are other references in that volume as well, particularly at page 626 and at 337. The latter reference mentions that the General Assembly had received word to appoint a committee to meet the commit- tee of the Legislative council and the House had once appointed Col Pinckney. the Hon Mr Drayton and Mr Salvador for that purpose. In fact. by the Constitution of 1776, the members of the Provincii! Congress, of which Salvador was a m-m- ber, were also members of the General As- sembly.
Both Drayton. in his momoirs. Volume 1. page 348, and Chapman, in his History of Edgefield County, page 150, refer to Salva- dor as a member of the General Assembly. As, however. my published essay on Sal- vador sufficiently covers the subject, it is needless to go into further detail.
The criticism that Salvador's remains are not buried in Charleston comes with ill grace indeed from the learned reviewer, who for years has been rabbi in Charles- ton. and presumably ought to know the fact. because of the ease with which he can verify the sam .. Only as recently as May 30. 1902. however, he himself wrote in the Jewish Comment. "Francis Salvador was killed in 1776. His remains rest in the old De Costa burial ground in Charleston, where his tombstone can still be seen."
I will frankly state that I was unable to find any reference to Jewish Tories in South Carolina during the American Revo- lution. The reviewer refers to a petition to Sir Henry Clinton, signed by 166 citi- zens of Charleston and containing seven Jewish names. I confess I have been un- able to find a copy of this petition in our public libraries in New York and if such a petition has been discovered I am confi- dent that that discovery has been made as
3
recently as within; a year or two. Some three years ago I examined every book on the history of Sout Carolina in the Lenox, the Astor and Columbia libraries, of this city, and was unable to find men- tion of Jewish Tories.
I have long been familiar with the peti- tion of the citizens of Charleston to Gen Lincoln to surrender the town, because they felt that further resistance would be useless. That petition was signed by many Jews, it is true, and has long since been incorporated in my essay on South Car- lina. The Jews who sigred it. however, were patriots, not Tories, and this is evi- dentiy not the petition that the reviewer refers to.
In looking over my notes, also, I find that three years ago I examined that valu- able and scarce work un the siege od Char'ten written by F. R. Hugh and published by Mansell, ar Albany. That is certainly the standard work on the sub- feet. While Hough dnes give an address of Loyalists in ina signed by over 200 persons, it is equally trile that not a sin- gie J-wish name appears among the signa- tures.
Even if another petition has been dis- covered and it must have been brought to light very recently) it wouMt by no means follow that even those names were names of Tories: for we gave a similar address in New York history and some of the names in that connection were proven to be names of patriots who were com- pelled to sign, by threats of violence or similar means. Assuming, however, that that was not the case in South Carolina. I will frankly say that I am glad that sufficient interest has been aroused in the South to bring to light new documents. and will repeat that much more unpub- lished material must be in existence and will be discoverd when South Carolina fol- lows the wise polley of other States in collecting and publishing her public rec- ords.
When, however, the reverend gentleman goes further in his review. refers to that petition ås "the well known petition" and says that "the veriest tyro who knows anything at all of the history of South Carolina cannot be guilty," ete, ind thit "there is no excuse for such ignorance." his statement is, to say the least, grossiy misleading, for he well know's that no such
reference has appeared in any published work, unless recently. And when he fur- ther says that Gen MeCradly has enough on the subject for anyone who desires in- formation, he must be aware that the General makes no mention of Jewish To- ries in his great work, a work much of which I had read and read with the in- terest it diserves, and of which South Carolina may justly be proud. It is most unfair, therefore, to call a recentis- dis- covered petition (if such is the fact) a copy of which cannot even be found in the Lenox Library of this city, a well known document.
The learned reviewer next challenges my statement as to the corps of volunteer infantry organizeit in 179 and composed almost exclusively of Israelites. In this connection he says: This special corps of King street Jewish merchants is, I am satisfied. one of the myths of history."
Lest anyone he misled by such remarks, and in the interest of the Jewish commu- nity of Charleston, I will give my author- ity for the starement I have made. To my mind that company was a reality and by no means a myth.
During the struggle for Jewish emanci- pation in Maryland, which commenced in 1518 and lasted for six or seven years, bit- terly opposed hy one clement, while strongly encouraged by the other many ad- Gresses were delivered
by prominent men and many pamphlets were circulated on the subject, some of which have come down to us.
When the struggle was at its height in 1524 an address was made in favor of the Jews bill" before the House of Delegates by Col J. W. Worthington, who in view of the bitter opposition must have been careful indeed about the facts he cited in favor of his contention. In that address occurs the following statement: "Here is another paper which contains the names of the corps of volunteer infantry in Charleston, South Carolina, in February, 1779. It was composed chi. ty of Israelites residing on King street and was com- manded by Capt Lushington and after- ward fought under Gen Moultrie at the battle of Beaufort."
If further evidence is required I would refer the reviewer to a paper prepared for Volume : for the American Jewish Histori- cal Society publication by Prof Hebert
5
B. Adams and Prof I. H. Hofander, where refereress are made to a letter written many years ago by Jarob I. Cohen to che famous Jared Sparks. of Harvard Uni- versity. From the letter I quote the for- Iwing: "I mentioned to you a military company that was formed in Charleston. South Carolina, composed almost exclu- sively of Israelites, of which my uncle was a member." ete A similar statement .s male. I believe, in the address of Dr De La Motta. delivered at the consecra- tion of the Savannah synagogue in 1820. [ would also refer to the paper in Leeser's Occident. Volume 14, page 143. and Mr Koh- ler's "Incilents of American Jewish Pa- (sitoirm. ' Volume 4. American Jewish Historical Society publications, page 96.
It is unnecessary to answer the criti- cism that I refer to so few of the South- ern Jews who served in the field, for that would be impossible in an article limited to 1.000 words.
The next criticism refers to Mordecal Sheftall, whom I refer to as commissary general for South Carolina and Georgia. The reverend reviewer implies not only that this was not the fact, but says fur- ther: "It is strange that Mr Heitman does not put him down as a Continental officer I be occupied such a postion." I cannot understand the motive for making such a misstat-ment. It requires but a glance at Heitman's Historical Register, published in 1833, at page €3, to find Mordecai Shefcall mentioned as a Continental officer. As to his appointment as deputy commissary of issues in South Carolina and Georgia. see Journal of Congress. October 28. 1778, and Dr Friedenwald's paper in three American Jewish Historical Society publications, page 56. In his petition. also, Sheftall re- fers to himself as deputy commissary of issues for the Southern department during the Revolutionary war." See Kohler's ar- ticle, above referred to, where additional authorities are given. (See, also, my paper on Mordecai Sheftall in Jewish Comment for November, 190.)
The reviewer takes offence at my men- tion of Major Nones in connection with an article on Charleston. Major Nones was a French Jew. and I will give his own words as to his Revolutionary care-r: "I fought throughout the whole of the Revolutionary war in the militia of Charleston and in Polafsky's Legion. fought in almost
6
every action which took place in Caro- lina." (See Dr Adler's paper in 1 A. J. H. S., page 112.) It was certainly no more than right to include Major Nones in an article on Charleston, even though he sub- sequenchy resided in Philadelphia.
The statement made in my article that Myer Moses was one of the first commis- sioners of education in Charleston is de- nied in the review, with the following comment: "Myer Moses was one of the commissioners of free schools-a purely local office, which had been in existence for upwards of one hundred years before Myer Moses was elected to it."
Let us see. In an elaborate article on "Education in Charleston," written for the Charleston Year Book for 1886 by Mr Henry P. Archer, superintendent of city public schools, the following statement is made at page 174: "The free schools thus far established were by special Acts of the Assembly and for special purposes, but on the 2d of December, 1811, the Legis- lature passed an Act establishing free schools throughout the State, and this was really the beginning of the publie school system, as such, in South Carolina."
"One of the provisions for carrying the Act of 1811 into effect was that the Legis- lature every three years appoint not less than three nor more than thirteen com- missioners of each election district. The number appointed by the Legislature which passed this Act was as follows: Thirteen for St Philip's and St Mary's (City of Charleston.) The thirteen com- missioners were-Myer Moses, etc.etc."
That certainly disposes of the criticism on my statement.
I feel I have already taken up too much of your valuable space.
What I Have said was said simply to correct erroneous impressions that may have been created by that unfair review.
With the reviewer's grudge toward the editors of the Encyclopedia I have noth- ing to do any more than with his abusive language. He is a stranger to me and I certainly have no feeling in the matter. I belleve, however, that [ may honestly say that the Charleston community may read my sketch in the Encyclopedia with Just prile and satisfacuon.
Trusting that you will insert the fore- going as a simple act of justice I am
Leon Huncer.
New York, February 3.
7
EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL.
Dr Elzas Substantintes his First Criticisms.
Inasmuch as the original review of Mr Huhner's article, "Charleston." in the Jewish Encyclopedia, was written by Dr Elzas at the request of The News and Courier, the foregoing reply of Mr Huh- ner has been referred to Dr Eizas, who makes the following rejoinder:
So Mr Huhner has replied. I would have allowed Mr Hubner to have the floor and not bothered with him any further, but his letter contains so much of a personal nature that might mislead, and so much plausible error, that I am compelled again, though most unwillingly, to devote atten- tion to him and show that my criticism was neither unjust nor unfair, but most just and eminently proper.
First. then, let me dispose of the mys- terious correspondence of Mr Huhner with the "Southern gentleman." The story can be told in a very few words. Some time in 1900 or 1901, having to lay over for a. few hours in Columbia, I dropped into the office of the "Southern gentleman" to say good-bye. On his desk, open, lay Mir Huhner's article, which to the best of my belief had already been published. I knew nothing of how it got there. A briel glance showed me what the article was, but I was particularly attracted by Mr Moses Lindo's Revolutionary title, I drew my friend's attention to it and he asked me whether it was the only mistake I saw. I will state here that the abstract in the American Hebrew to which I shall refer is a good condensation of the paper, the only addition that I can remember be- ing a long excerpt from the Charleston Year Book for. 1583 and a list of Revolu- tionary patriots, "possibly Jewish." Har- ing a five hours' ride on the train I asked my friend whether I might read it through and return it to him. He assented and I took it. It took me just fifteen minutes to read it. I found that there was abso- lately nothing in it. I put it in my satchaj and it was never again opened by me. The article was promptly returned to Co- lumbia. What I thought of it may be gathered from an extract of a letter of
mine to Funk & Waguails dated July 1%. 1901: "It occurred to me at the time that the 'research' therein contained together with the article itself might have occupied its author a half dozen hours, and he have time to spare." But that is neither here nor there. Why I lemanled the return of my contracts with Funk & Wagnalis and later refused to surrender my article is of no interest to the general reader. nor has it any bearing upon the subject of my review.
Mr Hohner is of opinon that practically every criticism I made is frivolous. I will again try to convince him to the contrary. With all his authorities and with all his preparation. he has been unable to answer one of them. I will leave the question of whether Charleston i the Capital Charleston County and come at once to Moses Lindo.
"He must also have known," says Mr Huhner, "that I did not refer to Lindo as a military man." To the best of my recol- lection-for I did not make a single note of the article-Mr Huhner referred to Lindo as a rich Charleston farmer, who during the Revolution became Inspector General for South Carolina. But I must not trust to memory. Let me quote the abstract of Mr Huhner's paper, which ap- peared three days after its delivery in the "American Hebrew" of December 29, 1899. It will be found on p. 267 and affords am- ple testimony as to the standing of Mr Huhner as a historian. As no correction was made in any succeeding issue, we are justified in taking the report as correct. Here is the opening paragraph, faithfully copied :
"Leon Huhner, Esq, read his paper, en- titled "The Jews of South Carolina Prior to 1900." The settlement of Charleston took place in 1656. and nine years later a document makes some mention of a Jew. It is a remarkable fact, worthy of com- mendation, that during the Revolutionary War not one Jow with Tory tendencies was found. AMONG THOSE WHO WERE IN THE ARMY WAS MOSES LINDO, who hell an important post, and Francis Labrador, perhaps the most distinguished of all. One of the corps of volunteers or- ganized for the defence of Charleston, in the latter part of the war, was composed chiefly of Israeltes, and of this corps favorable mention is made in the war an- nals, though unfortunately the names of
9
those composing it are lost. A remarka- ble fact is that most of the Jewish sol- diers were officers of some rank."
The capitals are mine. Labrador is a mistake evidently for Salvador, but La- brador is just as correct as the rest of the statements. all of which are incorporated in the article in the Encyclopaedia. The date 16só is not a mistake, for the second reference is to Archdale in 1/05. The New York libraries must possess remarkable hooks to have yielded such original ro- sults even to an explorer of Mr Huhner's ability. So much, however, for Mr Huh- ner's honesty.
And now for Mr Salvador. In Mr Huh- ner's article, referring to this patriot, we were informed that Salvador resided near Charleston. that he was a member of the Colonial Assembly as early as 1774, and that his remains were interred in the old Charleston cemetery. In my review 1 pointed out that Mr Huhner made no less than four mistakes in these three state- ments. Those four mistakes are still there If Mr Huhner had been familiar with the history of South Carolina he would have been able to understand what he read in Force's "Archives." I repeat what I said in my review that Salvador was never a member of the Commons House of Assem- bly of the Province of South Carolina, or. as Mr Huhner calls it, the "Colonial As- sembly." He was a member of the sec- ond Provincial Congress which declared South Carolina AN INDEPENDENT STATE, and which resolved itself into a General Assembly. It is apparent, there- fore, that it is incorrect to term that a "Colonial Assembly." It was a state Legislature, and was not even elected as such. I .can make the case no stronger than by quoting Mr Salley's review of Mr Huhner's"Salvador" in the South Carolina Historical Magazine for January, 1902. Re- ferring to Mr Huhner's statement that Saivador was "elected a member of the General Assembly of South Carolina," Mr Salley says:
'That is not true. No election for mem- bers of the Commons House of Assembly (not General Assembly, for there was none) ever took place in South Carolina while Salvador was a resident of the Province. The last election hell prior to the independent government established March 2, 176, was held the latter part of 17:2-before Salvador came to South Car-
TO
olina-and the first election for the Gen- eral Assembly created by the Constitution of 1776 took place in October, 1700-after Salva ler's death. Salvador was, however. a deputy to both of the Provincial Con- Eresses held in South Carolina prior to the Constitution of 1776."
This is surely clear enough to one who knows the history of South Carolina. It is not quibbling. Mr Huhner has authori- ties enough. but does not know enough of the subject to understand what he reads.
But Mir Huhner makes a big hit. My article in the "Jewish Comment" for Max 0, 1:02, is his authority for the statement that Salvador is buried here. His article in the Enerropaedia shows quite a credi- itable acquaintance with mine in the Jew- ish Comment, only it is well embellished. and it is the adernments that have got Mr Huhner into trouble. He appropriated my silver and forgot to rub off the hail- mark. The mistake I made was due to the fact that my article was written at a few hours' notice and was corrected in the following number and does not occur in the reprint in the "Israelite" or in The News and Courier. The mistake was an unfortunate one for Mr Huhner.
Mr Huhner next tells us that he was un- able to find my reference to Jewish Tories in South Carolina during the American Revolution. He can't find the "Petition to Sir Henry Clinton" with the names of Jews, in the libraries in New York, and it such a petition has been discovered has been discovered as recently as within a year or two! Some three years ago he examined every book in the Lenox. Astor and Columbia libraries and was unable to find mention of Jewish Tories. Even Mun- sell's "Siege of Charleston," "which is certainly the standard work on the sub- ject," didn't enlighten him.
Poor Mr Huhner: Who on earth but Mr Huhner would ever dream of writing the history of the Jews of Charleston in New York? If he is writing the early story, has he in New York the 36 volumes of Records relating to South Carolina from the State paper office in London, the Jew- ish references in which I recently pub- lished? Has he in New York the Probate Records, or the Records of Mesne Convey- ance? Has.he In New York the primary sources of all history, the Gazettes? Yet what history can possibly be written with- out these? The best that can be done is
only second-hand scissors-and-pencil writ- ing. and Mr Hubner cannot even do that intelligently. Just imagine a man who pretende to be a historian declaring that "it is most unfair to call a recently dis- covered petition rif such is a fact) a copy of which cannot even be found in the Lenox Library of this city, a well known document"" Mr Hubner is to be pitied rather than blamed.
But the New York Loraries are not as bad as Mr Huhner makes them out. The fault is not with the libraries. Does the Lenox Library not possess Sabine's "American Loyalists?" If Mr Huhner had consulted even that supremely wretched work he would have found the name of Isaac De Lyon. All honor to that man who showed a fearless devotion to princi- ple amid the opposing current of popular opinion and whose conduct was guided by his best judgment for his country's good. He was in excellent company. He is to be respected far more than those who sat on the fence, and there were many such.
If Mr Huhner knew anything of South Carolina history, he would have known that the estates of the Tories were con- fiscated after the Revolution and he could have found the list in Vol VI of the "Statutes of South Carolina," D. 633. Here he likewise would have found the name of Isaac De Lyon. Is there not a copy of this in New York? There would doubtless have been other amercements, bur the others were poor or had been impover- ished by the war and they had nothing to amerce.
And who but Mr Huhner would think of describing Munsell's "Siege of Charles- ton" as "Certainly the standard work on the subject?" One might almost doubt whether he has seen the inside of it. This is one of the rare books printed in Albany in 1867, in a limited edition of 100 copies. and largely made up of abstracts from contemporary NEW YORK papers-Riv- ington's Gazette-and New York was a long way from the scene.
And now a word as to the petition to Clinton. MeCrady mentions it and has a powerful word to say in defence of those who signed it, and who afterwards took the field. There is no record of Jews De- ing amongst these, and I prefer to take the records in preference to Mr Huhner. The document speaks for itself. Here are 166 citizens of Charles Town, including 7
12
well known Jews, affirming that they are "most sincerely affected to his Majesty's person and Government" and petitioning to be allowed "to evince the sincerity of their professions." This petition was re- terred to "gentlemen of known loyalty and integrity, as well as knowledge of the persons and characters of the inhabitants, in order to report the manner in which the memorialists had heretofare conduct- el thema yes," and they report favorably on the cases of the 166 citizens, including : Jews whose names are known to us. It is surely not my fault that the Lenox Library has not a copy of this document. I can tell Mr Huhner a great many other things relating to South Carolina that they do not possess in New York. But
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.