USA > South Carolina > Charleston County > Charleston > The Jews of South Carolina; a survey of the records at present existing in Charleston > Part 11
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
that petition was published in the Charles- ton pepers at the time of its presentation and has been here in the Charleston Li- brary ever since. It has been examined by hundreds of people as the well-worn rage atrasts. Does anyone still doubt the fact that the man who writes on South Caroline history cannot do the subject or any feature of the subject justice. unless he expinits the records of South Carolina in South Carolina? I-t others learn this much-needed lesson.
I niust now again refer for Mr Huhner's benefit to the traditional "corps of voiun- teer infantry" and give him some addi- tional information. I repeat what I said in my review, this corps is a myth. Mr Huhner prodluces remarkable authority. Let us see what it amounts to. He refers especially to an article in Lesser's "Deci- lent" for ISSs and to Mr Kohler's article in Vol 4 of the Am. J. H. S. The latter is identical with the former and is nothing but a clipping from the Occident. Here it is, almost in its entirety:
SOUTH CAROLINA JEWISH PATRIOTS
The following item from an article by Rev isaac Leeser, in the Occident. Vol XVI, p. 142 (150) gives in some little detail a story since then oft repeated; the prima- ry authorities for the incident are still un- known to the writer thereof: "A com- pany of soldiers who did good service in the defence of Charleston harbor were nearly all, if not all, Jews. The names of Daniel W. Cardozo, Jacob I. Cohen, Sr. and Isaiah Isaacs, we think. must have been on the roll of that company. * * * Sheftall Sheftall, Isaac N. Cardozo. &
13
brother of David, and Col Bush, occur to us just now as brave soldiers in the Revo- lution, and no doubt many others are known to other persons." Compare with this the following passage from a speech of Col J. W. D. Worthington on the Jew bill, Maryland, 1824, (Speeches on the Jew Bil, etc. by H. N. Brackenridge, Phila. 1829, p. 115:) "Here is another paper which contains the names of a corps of volun- teer infantry, in Charleston, South Caro- lina, in February, 17.9. It was composed chietly of Israelites, residing in King's street and was commanded ry Capt Lush- ington, and afterward fought under Gen Moultrie at the battle of Beaufort."
As for the company of Jews in the de- fence of Charleston harbor, it is most re- markable that no mention of it is made in contemporary records. It is certainly original for historians to mention names whom they "think must have been on the rolls." Col Bush, a Jew, in South Caro- lina. is a new name to me.
The second corps is the traditional one organized in 1779. The foregoing clipping shows that I was correet in my review, in surmising that Mr Huhner referred to Capt Richard Lushington's company of the Charles Town regiment of militia. I corrected Mr Huhner's mistake in giving the date of the organization of this regi- ment as 1779. It had been in existence since 1:38. But do we know anything from other sources of Capt Lushington's com- mand? We do. In the Gazette of the State of South Carolina of November 11. 1778, appear the names of 12 members of Lushington's company of whom but ? are Jews. In the same for March 10, 1779, 5 more names are given of men belonging to this company and only one of these is a Jew. So that, out of 17 names of men who served in this company at the time at which Mr Huhner says it was organ- ized. there are only 3 Jews. Lushington's command was probably in round numbers 50 men. On the petition of militiamen who served at the siege of Charleston, and Lushington's company served in the siege, there are.12 or possibly 13 Jewish names. Suprose they all belonged to Lushington's company. would they constitute the bulk of that company? But why did they need Lushington at all, if Mr Hahner's "re- markable fact is true that most of the Jewish soldiers were officers of some rank?" Let me dismiss Mr Huhner's mili-
1.4
tary history, by stating that I have a practically complete list of all the Jews who lived in Charleston during the Revo- Lution, and that there were not enough Jews living in Charleston-of fighting are -to constitute a company. It is intenl- gib'e that an earnest advocate in an ex- cited debate should use every scrap of avalable fact and tradition, but there is no excuse for this in a man who pretends to write history.
And now a word concerning Mordecai Shefrali. Mr Huhner referred to him as commissary general for South Carolina and Georgia. I objected. a little vaguely perhaps, that it was strange that Mr Heliman did not put him down as a Con- timenta' officer-of course it was under- stood from South Carolina. Sheitall was a "Depuis Commissary-General of Issues for the Southern Department." i. e., to the Continental Army assigned to the Southern Department. But is "Deputy
Commissary-General of Issues for the Southern Department" synonymous in Mr Huhner's mind with "Commissary-Gener- al for South Chrodna and Georgia? Let MIr Huhner lock at his history, if there is one in New York. and he will find that the commissary general of South Carolina was a State officer of militia and that his name was Thomas Farr, Junr.
And now just a wor! about Myer Moses. Jr. Here again Me Huhner does not under- stand what he has read. Does this Act state that these were the first "Commis- sioners of Free Schools?" (not Education. ) He refers to the Year Book for 18%, p. 174. Let me call his attention to p. 173. His- torians should always read the preceding page. Here we read as follows:
"There can be no doubt that the free school for the inhabitants of South Caro- lina mentioned in the Art of 1712 was the free school established in Charleston un- der the Act of 1710 and that the gentle- men mentioned above constitute the first Board of Free School Commisisonera in Charleston and in the State." (Long list given above.) Can Mr .Huhner read Ens- lish? This is surely evidence enough for my criticism that the office of "Commis- sioner of Free Schools" had been in ex- istence for upwards of a hundred years before Myer Moses, Jr. was elected to it.
In my review of Mr Huhner's article I did not exhaust his mistakes, though I challenged nearly every statement he
15
made. I could proceed with these mis- takes and show further absurdities in his recently published 'Jews of Georgia," where he volunteers some extraordinary Information about the Jews of Charleston, but, unlike Mr Huhner, I wil keep to the record. Mr Huhner Knows absolutely nothing about the story of the Jews of Charleston. It is as get an unwritten his- tory. How should Mr Huhner know it? He has not examined a single original record and he has not seen the records of Beth Elohim. Where is his history com- ing from? No man has a right to write history for an Encyclopedia, which sets itself up as authoritative, without doing the work properly. I think that I have made good my claim that Mr Huhner's article is an unparalleled monument of ignorance. I ami content to leave the mas- ter to the arbitrament of my readers.
In conclusion I will call attention to this significant fact: Mr Huhner's paper be- fore the Am. J. H. S. was read in 1800. In his article he refers to it in his biography as material available to the student. That paper has not yet been published. WHI"
Barnett A. Elzas.
THE CARGETT ORTE CO. CHASN. S. C
ELZAS VS HUHNER.
A FINAL WORD IN THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPAEDIA CONTROVERST.
Dr Barnett A. Elzas Establishes the Justice of his Criticisms of Mr Hohner's Article "Charleston" by Reference to Authorities in this State whom None can Gainsas.
[Reprinted from The News and Courier .. ]
The following communication has been addressed by Dr B. A. Elzas to the "Jew- ish Comment" and to the "American He- brew" as a final word in his Jewish En cyclopaedia controversy:
Editor Jewish Comment:
In fairness to myself, I ask your indul- gence and space for the fouowing corre- spondence. I think that it settles con- ciusively the question of whether Mr Huh- ner has in any way justified himself in the matter of the article "Charleston" in the jewish Encyricpaedia.
February 9, 1903.
Mr A S. Salley, Jr, Sec, South Carolina Historical Society-Dear Sir:
I am sending you my copy of Vol III of theJewish Encyclopaedia, containing the article "Charleston," also my review of same, as well as a marked copy of last Sunday's News and Courier. You will ob- serve that my Review has given rise to a very unpleasant controversy. Might I ask you in the interest of historical investiga- tion, and as an acknowledged authority on the history of this State, to prepare a brief resume of the relevant points in the respective papers, and to send same to me at as early a date as is convenient to you. I trust that you will find this matter of sufficient importance to warrant you in acceding to my request.
Respectfully yours, Barnett A. Elzas.
At the same time, I addressed a letter to Gen Edward Modrady, the historian of this State, who replied as follows: Dr Barnett A. Elzas,
Charleston, S. C. February 11, 1903. Dear Sir:
In reply to your letter of 10th, asking me whether I consider Mr A. S. Salley, Jr, the secretary of the South Carolina His- torical Society, competent to speak with authority on matters relating to the his- tory of the State, I readily reply that I do. I regard Mr Salley as one of the very best and most accurately informed stu- dents of the subject with whom I am ac- quainted, and one fully competent to speak with authority on matters relating thereto. Besides being secretary of the Society, he is editor of the Historical and Genealogical Magazine, published by that body, a position which he tills with great success. I have frequent occasion to con- suit Mr Salley upon this subject, and al- ways with profit and advantage.
I am, dear sir,
Yours very truly. Edward McCrady.
(Signed.)
Mr Salley has sent me the following statement:
Mr Huhner is in error when he states that the Jews seem to have influenced a general election in 1702. The minority con- sidered their votes illegal, and wished to throw out the election as an illegally con- ducted one. There were not enough Jews in the community to have affected the general result.
Moses Lindo was not Inspector general for South Carolina. Inspector general was a military office. He was inspector gener- al of Indico-a purely civil office.
Mr Huhner says that Francis Salvador was a member of the Colonial Assembly as early as 1774, and of the Provincial Con- gress as well. Salvador was never a mem- ber of the Commons House of Assembly (or Colonial Assembly, as Huhner calls it,) nor was he a member of any leg- islative body in South Carolina in 1774. Mr Huhner finds in Force's "Archives" that Salvador was a member of the Gen- eral Assembly in 1776. He seems unable to comprehend the difference between the Assembly of the Province in 1774 and the Assembly of the State in 176. These were two entirely different bodies.
There are several authorities in which a student can find the names of Jewish Tories. Sabine's "Loyalists" and the list of confiscated and amerced estates given in Vol. VI, Statutes at Large of South Carolina, ought to be known to all who
2
undertake to write of the Revolutionary period in South Carolina. The petition to Clinton cannot be regarded as a recently discovered document. It is and has been for generations a perfectly familiar paper to all who have done research work here. If Mr Huhner had consuited any local worker he could have been informed on that point. It cannot be urged that its absence from a New York library excuses ignorance of its existence. Rich though the New York libraries are in Ameri- cana, they possess comparatively little on South Carolina. The materials for writ- ing the history of this State are only to be found here. It is likewise erroneous to call Munseil's "Siege of Charleston" "the standard work on the subject. ' It is an- other work prepared from a distance.
That there were British sympathizers among the Jews of Charleston Is abun- dantly evidenced by the fact that numbers of them continued to do business in Charleston during the period of British occupation. This is shown by the Gazettes. Those who had been hostile were sought out by the British and either banished or forbidden to do business.
There was no company of volunteers or- ganized in Charles Town in 1770. nor was Lushington's company composed almost exclusively of Jews. The Militia Act of 1773 prohibited the organization of vol- unteer companies after its passage. The company of the Charles Town regiment or militia, commanded during a part of the Revolution by Capt Richard Lushington, had beenin existence since 1738, and during at least two years of the war-1778-1780- contained a number of Jews, but they by no means constituted the greater part of the company, as our records will show.
Mordecai Shettall was not commissary general of South Carolina.
Mr Huhner errs about Franklin J. Moses, and confuses the second Myer Moses with his father. That Myer Moses, Jr, was not one of the first "commission- ers of education" Dr Elzas has proved be- yond argument.
I take no note of the dates referred to in the matters of the Congregational His- tory of Beth Elohim. Dr Elzas has the original minutes and should know of what he writes.
3
M: Huhner's reference to the part played by the Jews of Charleston In the Confederate war is trifling in the ex- treme.
A. S, Salley, Jr.
Is there any excuse for an article with so many mistakes being allowed to find Its way into an Encyclopaedia which claims to be authoritative" The question whose initials are appended to an article is insignificant. We have a right to know however, whether the Jewish En- cyclopaedia is to be a work in which only the best work of the best available men is incorporated or whether it is to be merely a convenient publication of the efforts. good, bad and Indifferent, of the friends of the department editors.
Yours obediently, Barnett A. Elzas.
Perhaps Mr Huhner is satisted. Perhaps Mr Cyrus Adler is satisfied. Perhaps the Funk & Wagnalis Company are satisfied. For myself, the matter is now closed. Barnett A. Elzas.
Charleston, February 13.
THE DAGGETT PATE CO OHANN. 3.0.
MOSES LINDO.
A Sketch of the Most Prominent Jew in Charleston in Provincial Days. ... BY ...
D:, BARNETT A. ELZAS, Rabbi of K. K. Beth Elohim.
keprinted from the Charlestor News and Courier, Jan. : y !
-
MOSES LINDO.
محمد صل محمد
A Sketch of the Most Prominent Jew in Charleston in Provincial Days.
The subject of this sketch is a most in- teresting figure in the early days of South Carolina's history. Who Moses Lindo was, I do not know. I only know what is related of him in that wonderfully rich and priceless collection of Gazettes that is to be found in our own Charleston Library alone. I have as yet made no at- tempt to trace him in London. I shall do so later and I am satisfied that I shall have no difficulty in finding out something more about him. I am personally ac- quainted with several members of the Lindo family in London, which has been notably connected with the Spanish and Portuguese community of that city for several generations.
Pieriotto in charming "Sketches of Angio-Jewish His- tory." (p. 124,) makes mention of a Moses Lindo, Jr, as a prominent member of the "Deputies of British Jews," a body ap- pointed "To watch all Acts of Parliament, Acts of Government, laws, libels, ad- dresses, or whatever else may affect the body of Jews," and which is to-day the most influential organization of Jews in the world. He may be a son of our Moses Lindo. The latter was himself an impor- tant personage in London prior to his coming to South Carolina. He himself tells us (January 19, 1767:) "I have been allowed to be one of the best judges of Cochineal and Indico on the ROYAL EX- CHANGE, for upwards of 25 years past, and have not been thought unworthy (when Sir Stephen Theodore Jansen rep- resented the city of London in Parlia- ment) to be called with Mr Samuel Torin and Mr Daniel Valentine, to give my sen- timents of Carolina Indico to the bon. House of Commons of Great Britain." Suffice it to say, then, that he was an expert indigo sorter, in Londor, who, no- Licing that a particularly fine grade of in- digo was received from South Carolina. changed his headquarters in 1736 from London to Charies-Town. The rest of his story cannot be better told than by the Gazettes themselves.
We first meet with Moses Lindo in the Gazettes, some three months before he arrives in Charles-Town. The following is the first notice of him and appears in the supplement to the "South Carolina Gazette" of Thursday, August 19, 1756.
"A Correspondent in London, has sent us the following Advertisement, and with it proper Directions for making Lime Water to subside Indico.
"To the Printer of the Public Adver- tiser:
"SIR:
"I HAVE examined the major Part of the Carolina Indico entered this year, and have the Pleasure to find a considerable Quantity equal to the BEST French; and tho' there is some inferior to the Sight by 3s. 6d. per Pound, yet on using it as under, I am convinced the Inferiority is not more that Is. od. a Pound. Therefore, Sir, your publishing this, will be a singular Service to the consumer, and consequently oblige. "Your constant Reader,
"Moses Lindo, Wormwood-street.
"The Carolina of the above Sortment must be ground finer than the French, and cast into Blood-warm Water three Days before Use, drawing off the Water every 24 hours, and casting fresh, and adding a 5th Part more Madder than usual. The Cause of its not working free is, that some of the Makers at Carolina are unacquainted when their Lime-Water is proper to subside the Indico."
"THE DIRECTIONS.
"The proper Lime-Water for Indico must be the Third Water: The First cast away after four Hours, the Second after eight; but the Third must stand ten. which will be more Ascid than alkaline. The Crust that rises on the Water must be carefully taken off, otherwise it will cause the Mould, which would appear in the Indico white, to be the colour of rusty fron.
"It would be greatly to the advantage of the Maker, If the Pieces were an Inch and a half square."
FROM LONDON TO CHARLES TOWN.
The next notice of Moses Lindo is the announcement of his arrival in Charies- Town.
2
"MOSES LINDO gives this public No- tice, that he is arrived from London, with an Intent to purchase Indico of the Growth and Manufacture of this Province, and to remit the same to his Constituents in London, classed, sorted and packed in a Manner proper for the foreign market .- It any are desirous to know upon what Credit, and to what Extent he purposes to carry on his Branch of Business, he begs leave to refer them for Particulars to Mr John Rattray, who is possessed of his Papers, and to whom he is recom- mended."
(The South Carolina Gazette, Novem- ber 11, 1756.)
The magnitude of Lindo's business transactions may be gathered from the following:
"Whereas I have employ'd the Sum of One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Pounds Currency in the Produce of this Country, besides 3),000 Pounds in Prize- Goods and other Articles, all which are paid for, as appears by my Receipt-Book, except about 3,00 Pounds Currency, 2,000 of which does not become due 'till the 221 Instant. The Remaining 1,500 Pounds [ have my objections for not paying.
"NOW THIS IS TO GIVE NOTICE, to every Gentleman, Planter and Trader in this Province, who has any Demands on me, that they come and receive their Money from the 13th to the 25th Instant. If any One should take the Liberty of contradicting the above Advertisement, 01 give out any other malicious Insinuation. in order to prejudice me in the Good Opin- ion of those I have dealt with, I shall esteem it one of the greatest Favours done to me, to let me know the same by a Line, and their Names shall be concealed. And if such Information comes from a person of middling Circumstances, on due Proof thereof, I do hereby promise to re- ward him with the Sum of Five Hundred Pounds Currency.
"I return my Thanks to those Gentle- men who assisted me in taking my Bills for 12,000 Pounds Sterling; and to the Planters of Winyah and those of the Southward, for giving me the Preference of their Indico. And do hereby assure them, that (if it please God I live 'till the next Season) I will not let their Fine In- dico Fall under 20 Shillings per Pound, having all the Reason to believe I shall have 200.000 Pounds Currency to lay out
3
the ensuing Year in that Article; where- fore I hope they will not be discouraged. MOSES LINDO
Whoever is desirous of being informed what I paid for what I bought, may know of William Branford, John Hutchin- son, John Butler, William Gibbs, Jonas Butterfield, Andrew Gowan, &n, &c.
"N. B .- If any Ferson is willing to part with a plantation of 800 Acres, with 60 or TO Negroes. I am ready to purchase it for ready money. Please to leave a Line di- rected to me at Mrs Shepard's in Tradd- street, and Secrecy shall be observed il not agreed on."
{Supplement to the South Carolina Ga- zette, March 10, 1737.)
A SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMIENTER.
Moses Lindo was not only an expert in- digo sorter, but was also a scientific ex- perimenter with dyes. He sought to en- courage investigation, likewise. on the part of others by offering prizes for dis- coveries if they proved to be of value. Witness the following:
"Mr Timothy:
'I HAVE made Trial of Two CRIM- SON DYES lately discovered in this Prov- ince; and in Justice to Mr John Story of Port Royal, Carpenter. I am obliged to declare that I find his Crimson called JOHN'S-BLOOD, answers all the Pur- poses of Cochineal; for it dyes a fine Crim- son on Cotton. so as to stand washing with Soap-Lees: and it is my firm Opin- ion will likewise dye Scarlet. I have sent Samples of it Home, via Bristol, that, when approved of in London, by Messrs George Farmer and George Honour. two eminent Dyers there. The said Mr Story may be entitled to Part of the Reward of- fered by the Society for encouraging Arts, to such as can fix a Scarlet or Turkey Red on Cotton
"And as there are many Roots and Weeds to be found in this Province and Georgia, that will dye REDS, I shall be obliged to all who will meet with such in their Way, to send me a Pound dried in the Shade; that I may make Trials of them. And If the Discoverers be persons In middling Circumstances, and what they produce to me he proven a DYE, [ will re- ward them with Fifty Pounds Currency, and use my best Endeavors to obtain for them further Gratuities from the Dyers' Company in London.
4
"I am sensible, Mr Timothy, you are ' Well-Wisher to the Interest of this Prov ince and the Mother-Country; therefore, hope you will not omit publishing In your Gazettes any Hints tending to the Ad- vantage of both whenever such are offered you; and thereby, amongst others oblige "Your Constant Reader,
MOSES LINDO. "Charles-Town, July 16, 1759."
(South Carolina Gazette, Saturday, July 28, 1:59.)
Moses Lindo's contract with the Lon- don house which he represented having expired, and their agent having failed to pay for the indigo consigned to them, as also his annual allowance, he next an- nounces that during his stay here he would mark Carolina Indico. First, Sec- ond and Third Sort, as he had done for them on a reasonable commission. He does not expect to be paid unless the in- dico so sorted "adds credit to this prov- Ince and profit to those who chuse to ship that article," so as to prevent Impositions by the purchasers of Carolina indico in England.
(South Carolina Gazette, November 14. 1761.)
"AS GOOD AS THE FRENCH."
In the next notice he announces that in consequence of his advertisement of the 12th of November last, several gentlemen have left their indico to his care. He assures the public that out of the twenty thousand weight on board of the vessels under convoy. there are 18,000 as good as the French. Should it appear at home to the purchasers of it, that he has not de- monstrated it as such, he says that it will be doing the gentlemen here a piece of service if they will signify his fault in Lloyd's Evening Post, under the attesta- tion of Messrs Mark Hudson Peter Fearon, Aaron Lara and William Richard- son, eminent brokers in this and other dyes. "To whose judgment only I submit, as well as to their equity in doing mie justice, whether they ever saw so large a parcel of Carolina indico so even sorted as not to differ in value two pence ster- ling per pound from the Arst lot to the last.
. Lindo had met with such marked suc- cess in his business, that he roused the jealousy of his competitors; who seem to have spreid false reports concerning him.
5
He retaliates in this same advertisement.
"As some purchasers of indico may Imagine that by this advertisement I want to get more indico to sort, I do hereby declare that I will only do it for those that I am engaged with, they being well known to capital people, and capable of purchasing as much indico of the pianters as I can well attend to." He indignantly denies that he owes more than 3,000 guin- eas in this province than is due to him at home, 'as some people have through their correspondence insinuated to my friends and relatives.'
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.