USA > South Carolina > Charleston County > Charleston > The Jews of South Carolina; a survey of the records at present existing in Charleston > Part 5
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
Barnett A. Elzas.
[Reprinted by the Y. M. H. A. Charleston, S. C.]
19
أر ص
-----
...
4 .
The Jews of Charleston ...
A Review of the Article "Charleston" in Vol. 3, of the Jewish Encyclopaedia.
By Dr. BARNETT A. ELZAS, Rabbi of K. K. Beth Elohim.
[ Reprinted from The Charleston News and Courier. December, 1902.]
--
I have been an enthusiast on the sub- ject of the Jewish Encyclopaedia from its inception. It is an enoch-making work in the history of the Jews and of Judaism. and too much praise cannot be bestowed upon the genius who first promoted it and the publishers whose enterprise has ren- lered its publication possible. Ten years ago the possibility of carrying a work of such magnitude to successful completion would have been looked upon as a fan- tastic dream of a visionary. We all rejoice to-day in the fact that the Jewish Ency- clopaedia is now a reality. The third vol- ume has just come to hand and is a most welcome addition to its predecessors.
There is one article, however, that dis- figures this ctherwise excellent volume: an article that is without parallel in the number of errors that it contains, and of errors that could never have been made had the article been entrusted to one who
was in the slightest degree familiar with luis subject, or to one, even, who knew enough to use the available materials of others who have pursued the same line of investigation before. I regret that the article happens to be "Charleston."
I would not have gone to the trouble of reviewing this article in detail but for the fact that we are fast approaching the time when the complete story of the Jews in America will have to be written. The Jewish Encyclopaedia is itself going to furnish much of the material for the fu- ture historian. When the time comes for this story to be written-and it cannot be delayed much longer-the Jews of Charles- ton will be found to occupy a far more prominent place in the picture than many now imagine, for Charleston has from the first been marked as a maker of history. and the Jews of Charleston have never teen insignificant in the community to which they belonged.
I will now proceed to an examination of this remarkable article-for the article is, in truth, a most remarkable one. It is written by Mr L. Huhner, A. M., LL. B., of New York, contains about a thousand words and more mistakes in those thou- sand words than I have ever met with in any single volume in the whole course of my reading experience. Mr Huhner is a prominent member of the American Jewish Historical Society, who, I am told, has made a specialty of South Carolina Jewish history. In the bibliography at the end of his article he refers twice to him- self-one reference being to an article that is not yet published. It is well that we have it, even if only from Mr Huhner himself, that he is an authority on the subject on which he writes; we certainly would never have suspected it from this specimen of his handiwork.
22
-
The article begins. as an article on Charleston should begin, with the infor- mation that Charleston is in South Caro- lina, which is in the United States. But Mir Huhner cannot even tell that straight. He incidentally notes that it is the "capi- tal of the county of the same name." Such a misuse of terms is surprising in one educated for the Bar. Charleston is the county seat, but not the capital of Charles- ton County. In America States have capi- tals and not counties.
Next follow references to the earliest mention of a Jew in Charleston and to Locke's Constitution. Both of these refer- ences are absolutely correct and are wor- thy of special mention on that account. There is little else of which the same can be said.
In the next item we are informed that "in 1,02 Jews appeared in numbers and they seem to have influenced a general election." This is very vague, but I will not examine it too closely. Mr Huhner evidently does not understand the quota- tion from Rivers with reference to the bigoted Dissenters who protested in 1:03 against the "Jews aliens" who had voted in the last election. The protest was against the legality of the election and had nothing to do with its result, for the Jewish vote had not affected it.
In the list of the earliest members of Beth Elohim Meshod Tobias appears as "Michael" Tobias; Mordecai Sheftall's name is spelt "Sheftail"-a clear misprint, and Levy Shettall's name is omitted.
The next item of information is really funny. Moses Lindo is rightly quoted as the most conspicuous man among the Jews of South Carolina in provincial days. Mr Huhner refers to him as "Inspector General for South Carolina!" He evidently ly takes Lindo for a military man. Any-
3
one who has read the newspapers of the period knows that Lindo was "His Mo- jesty's inspector general of Indico" (it- digo) and later also of tobacco.
We now come to the interesting period of the Revolution. Here Mr Huhner is at his best as a manufacturer of history At the outbreak of the war. Mr Huhner tells uz, the most prominent Jew was Francis Salvador, "who resided near Charleston, and whose remains are interred in the old Charleston Cemetery." Salvador, he further informs us. "was a member of the Colonial Assembly as early as 1774, and of the Provincial Congress as well. He was one of the leading patriots of the South."
This brief notice of Salvador is extra- ordinary, coming. as it does, from one who has written a special monograph on him for the Jewish Historical Society. Francis Salvador was certainly his name. and Francis Salvador was as certainly a patriot. But Francis Salvador did not live near Charleston, but at Ninety Six, which is in the northwest of the State, almost as far from Charleston as one could get without leaving South Carolina. Nor was Salvador "a member of the Colonial A.s. sembly as early as 177." There never was such a body in South Carolina as "the Cu- lonial Assembly." There was a "Commons House of Assembly of the Province of South Carolina," but no House was elected after Salvador came to America. Salvador came to South Carolina during the latter part of 17:3, and the last elec- tion for the Commons House of Assembly ever held in South Carolina took place in 1772. Nor are Salvador's remains interred in the old Charleston Cemetery. Salvador met his tragic end at. Essenecca, some fifty miles from where he lived. (See Huh- ner's "Francis Salvador" in publications of American Jewish Historical Society,
4
Vol 9, p. 120.) He may have been buried where he fell or he may have been carried to his own plantation, We have no infor- mation on the subject. It is Joseph Sal- vador who is buried here-the uncle and father-in-law of the patriot-and he is buried, not in the old burial ground here. (Coming street ) but in the Da Costa ground. (Hanover street.)
"During the struggle for independence," we are next informed, "the Jews of Charleston distinguished themselves by their patriotism. Not a single case of Toryisin was to be found among them."
. This would indeed be a remarkable fact were it true and a notable exception to traditional Jewish loyalty to the sover- vign Power The veriest tyro, however. who knows anything at all of the history of South Carolina during the Revolution, could not be guilty of writing such non- sense. There were numbers of Jewish Tories in Charleston at the outbreak of the Revolution, and we have no reason to be ashamed of it. There was as much of patriotism in the Tory as there was in the most ardent Revolutionist and we meet with the very best in South Carolina as loyal subjects of the Crown. I need not mention names. MeCrady has enough on the subject for anyone who desires the in- formation. There is no excuse for such ignorance in a man who pretends to have looked into the original sources for his facts-and no man can write history with- out doing this-else he is hable to he in hot water all the time.
In the well known "Petition to Sir Henry Clinton." signed by 166 citizens of Charles Town, there are the names of seven well known Jews, fincluding some of Mr Huh- tice's "patriots.") This petition sets forth that the petitioners "were very desirous to shew every mark of allegiance and at-
5
tachment in their power to his Majesty's person and Government, to which they were most sincerely affected, and, there- fore, humbly prayed that they might have an opportunity to evince the sincerity of their professions."
In the Proclamation dated September 13. 1750, we are informed that "The said Me- morials and Petitions had been referred 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 Memorial- ists had heretofore conducted themselves: and that they having made their report in favor of the persons undermentioned (166 names, including the aforesaid ? well- known Jews.) Notice is hereby given that if they will apply at the State House and there * * * subscribe a deciara- tion of their allegiance, they will receive a certificate, which will entitle them to use the free exercise of their trades or pro- fessions, and the privileges enjoyed by the other loyal inhabitants of Charles-town."
(The Royal South Carolina Gazette, Thursday, September 21, 1780.)
In the list of those whose estates after the Revolution were "amerced in a fine of 12 per cent ad valorem," there is likewise a well-known Jewish name. (See "Statutes of South Carolina, Vol VI, p. 633.
But we are not yet through with Mr Huhner's story of the Revolution.
Mr Huhner next refers to the traditional "Corps of volunteer infantry"-which in the next line is magnified into a regiment (!) "composed almost exclusively of Israel- ites," and "which was organized in 1779." "This regiment," Mr Huhner continues, "subsequently fought at the Battle Beaufort."
This special corps of King street Jewish merchants is, I am satisfied, one of the myths of history. Mr Huhner evidenti.'
5
refers to Capt Richard Lushington's Com- sany of the Charles-Town Regiment of Militia. This contained several Jews, the names of whom have come down to us, but they are not those mentioned by Mir Hubner. This regiment was not organized in 1770, but had been in existence since 1738 and had merely entered the service of the Revolutionary Government of the State. Nor did this regiment serve at the Battle of Beaufort. but only a detachment of it.
I will not here discuss the names re- Ierred to by Mr Huhner as having served on the field. He mentions only nine men. He informs uts that Mordecai Shortail was commissary general for South Carolina and Georgia. It is strange that Mr Heit- man does not put him down as a Continen- tai officer if he occupied such a position. He certainly did not hold this office for the State of South Carolina. The statement, too. that most of the Jews served as offi- cers, is not a fact, as I shall elsewhere show.
Major Nones belongs to Philadelphia, and Mordecai Myers to Georgetown and not to Charleston.
Among the Jews who held high offices in the State during the early portion of the nineteenth century are mentioned Myer Moses, a member of the Legislature in 1510, and Franklin J. Moses, Chief Jus- tice of South Carolina. Franklin J. Moses was not Chief Justice until after the Con- federate war.
Amongst "other" prominent Charleston Jews during the early part of the nine- teenth century we find Myer Moses, one of the first "Commissioners of Education." Mr Huhner evidently thinks that he is dealing with two people. There were two distinguished men who bore the name of Myer Moses, The above references. hoa- ever, are both to Myer Moses, Jr. Nor was he "one of the first "Commissioners
7
of Education." There was no such office in existence at that time. Myer Moses, Jr, was one of the "Commissioners of Free Schools"-a purely local office, which had been in existence for upwards of a hun- dred years before Myer Moses, Jr, was elected to it.
The first Jewish Reform movement be- gan in Charleston in 1924 and not in 1825, as stated by Mr Huhner.
Isaac Harby was a prominent member of that movement, but he never was edi- tor of the City Gazette. John Geddes, Jr, was editor in Harby's day.
The second split in Congregation Beth Elohim, in consequence of the introduc- tion of the organ, took place in 1840 and not in 1843, as Mr Huhner states.
And lastly, the item with reference to the part played by the Jews of Charleston in the Confederate war, can only be read with feelings of contempt and disgust. Here it is:
"At the outbreak of the civil war the Jews of Charleston joined their Gentile brethren in the Confederate cause. One of the prominent soldiers of the Confederacy was Dr Marx E. Cohen." (!) No one ques- tions the gallantry of this young soldier, who was shot at Bentonville, but why se- lect him alone of the hundreds who ren- dered equally signal service to their State? I wsmiss the paragraph without further comment. One might wonder, however, whether such notices are inserted at ad- vertising rates.
I could have said much more, but for- bear. Mr Huhner has covered himself with glory. He has erected to himself a monument more lasting than bronze, If anyone can point out the like of his work in the literature of ignorance, I would like to know it. I think that he has accom- plished a unique feat-and all in a thou-
sand words! We may well congratulate ourselves. What would have happened it he had written two thousand? The thought is appalling.
In conclusion, I would not have my read- ers carry away the impression that the article, "Charleston," in the Jewish En- cyclopaedia, by L. Huhner, A. M., LL. B., is a fair sample of that magnificent work. It is merely an illustration of the methods of department editors, who for reasons best known to themselves, entrust special work to those utterly incompetent to ac- complish It. "Vaulting ambition doth sometimes o'erleap itself." Perhaps some department editors are not quite as fa- miliar with their fields as their admiring friends or a generous publlc have led them to believe.
The Charleston Jewish community may not be as large to-day as it was in former years, but from a thorough knowledge of its past I do not hesitate to declare that its influence to-day in commerce, in civil affairs, and in the professions generally- taking it as a whole-is as great as it ever was. It is an ancient community and dur- ing the two centuries of its history its record has been a glorious one. It was worthy of a better fate than to be thus mercilessly butchered at the hands of a raw, amateur, would-be-historian.
1
1
THE DAGGETT PRINTING CO., CHARLESTON, S. C.
The Jews of South Carolina . ..
A Survey of the Records at Present Existing in Charleston.
To write an adequate and comprehensive history of the Jews of South Carolina to- day is a task of enormous difficulty. Not that there is any dearth of material to hiin who has the patience and the industry to go after it, but because many valuable documents are no longer in existence; and, furthermore, because a vast amount of material bearing upon the history of South Carolina during the Revolutionary period and indirectly, therefore, upon that of the Jews, is at present hidden away In Columbia. where it will be some years be- fore it will be available to the historian.
The oldest records of the Congregation Beth Elohim, too, have disappeared. Those which I recently recovered, valuable though they be, only date from 1800. The oldest records, with the exception of one volume, were no longer in existence in 1844, which fact was elicited in the exam- ination of Solomon Valentine, the then Secretary of the Congregation in the trial of The State vs Ancker, of which I have written elsewhere, ""The Organ in the Synagogue," reprinted from The News and Courier, November. 1202.)
Even that one precious volume is gone. But in spite of this I think that we can obtain from the rich historical matemal soll remaining in Charleston, & tolerably good glimpse in outline of the history of the Charleston Jewish community -- enough
----
-----
---
at least to enable some future and more capable worker in this field, to fill in the details and reconstruct it in its entirety. Personally, I can only hope to gather up a few scattered threads: and I shall, as far as possible, let the records speak for themselves.
The story of South Carolina is indeed a. thrilling one. From 1670, when it was first settled, down to this day, it has been one long tale of glorious achievement. In not a few things has this State set the pace to her sister States, but in nothing may she feel a more justifiable pride than in the broad and liberal principles on which she was founded.
"In the year 1669," we read in the rec- ords, "the Lords did encourage severall people to come in their Vesseils to inhab- itt this part of their province and with the said people did alsoe send Fundam!i Lawes, Constitucons under the hands & Seales of six of their Lordshipps bearing date 21st July, '€3, as the unalterable forme & rule of Governmt for ever.' "
(Langdon Cheves, Esq, in "Shaftesbury Papers"-Note to p 117.)
This Constitution of John Locke (1669,) was a veritable Magna Charta of liberty and tolerance. South Carolina started right. My chief concern being the Jews of South Carolina, I would especially call attention to Article &7 of that Constitu- tion. It is to be found in the Shaftesbury Papers in the 5th volume of the Collec- tions of the South Carolina Historical So- ciety :
"S7. But since ye natives of yt place who will be concernd in or. plantations are utterly strangers to Christianity, whose idoliatry, ique. rance, or mistake gives us noe right to expeli or use ym. ill, & those who remove from other parts to plant there, will nnavoydably be of alff-
Z
rent opinionx concerning matters of religion, ve liberty whereof they svill expect to have allowed ym., & it will not be reasonable for ns on this account to keep ym. out yt civil Deace mny be maintaind amidst ye diversity of opinions, & our agree- ment is compact with all men may he daly & faithfully observed, ye violation whereof upon what p'tence yoever. cannot be withont great offence to Almighty God. & great scandal to the true religion yt we p'fesse. & also ft heathens. Ines, and other dissenters from the purity of Christian religion may not be scared and kept at a distance from it. but by having an oppertunity of acqnainting themselves with
se trath & reasonablenes of its doc- trines, & je peacablenes & inoffen- civenex of Its professors, may by good usage and perswasion, & all those convincing methods of gentle- ney & meeknes sutable to ye rules & designe of the Ghospel. be wone over to imbrace and unfernedly re- veire ye truth. Therefore any sen- ven or more persona agreeing in any religion shall constitute a church or profession to web. they shall give some name to distinguish it from others."
Little wonder. then, that the persecuted Jew, like the persecuted Huguenot and German Palatine, soon came here to find a haven of rest. To be undisturbed in the possession of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." and to enjoy the privilege of worshipping God as his conscience dic- tated-these have ever been the ideais of the Jew, even as they were the ideals upon which this great Republic was established. For by far the greater part of his his- tory, in every country, some or all of these "inalienable rights of man" have been denied hun. Here he could have them all, and in fullost measure. South Carolina
3
welcomed him. welcomed him as a man. welcomed him as a brother; welcomed him as a citizen, and the Jew showed himself worthy of the confidence that was reposed in him. It is no idle boast to claim that there are none who have shed more lustre upon the annals of this State. or have done more towards its upbuilding, than have its Jewish citizens.
When did the Jews first come here and where did they come from? Thereby hangs an interesting tale.
In the Charleston Library there is a re- print of a unique volume entitled "A New Description of that Fertile and Pleasant Province of Carolina, by John Archdale, Late Governor of the Same." (London, 1707.) It was reprinted in Charleston in 1822. On page 22 there occurs the following interesting narrative:
"Now that the Reader inny pininly discern, that the Almighty and Om- niscient God, takes cognizance of Human Affairs, and directs them by a wise and prudent Chain of Causes. I shall relate some remarkable Pas- sages that happened quickly after that I entered npon the Government. which was the 17th of August, 1695. There is a Nation of Indians call'd the fammassees, who formerly lived under the Spanish Government, but now live under the English, about 80 Miles from Charles-Town. Some of these Indians going a Hunting. about 200 Miles to the Southward, met with some Spanish Indians that lived about Saneta Maria, not far from Augustine, the Sent of the Spanish Government; and taking them Prisoners. brought them Home. designing to sell them for Slaves to Barbadoes or Jamaica ax was uxnul; but I understanding thereof, sent for their King, and or- dered him to bring these Indians with him to Charles-Town, which
1
accordingly he did: There were three Men and one Woman; they could speak Spanish, and I had a Jew for an interpreter. so upon ex- amination, I found they profess'd the Christian Religion as the Pa- Diana do: upon which I thought in a most peculiar manner, they ought to be freed from slavery; and there- upon order'd the King to carry them to Augustine to the Spanish Governonr with a Letter. desiring an Answer relating to the receit of them: who having rereiv'd them; sent me the following Letter: So far ax relates to this Affair, I copy it forth:"
( Here follows the letter. which is of no interest to our investigation.)
Who was this Jew who lived in Charles- Town in the year 1095? Can we find him elsewhere? Were there others here at that early date? The records will help us.
In the Probate Records. 1094-1704, p. 133, Abraham Avilah. of Charles Towne, in ye County of Berkley and Province of Caro- lina, "for divers good causes and consid- erations me at this time especially move- ing and more especially out of trust and confidence which I repose in Mr Simon Valentine MI-cht, make him my true and lawfull attorney." This Power of Attorney is dated March 25, 1698.
We meet with this Simon Valentine sev- eral times in the old records. He writes his name Simon Valentyn. On page 339 of the same volume, Jacob Mears, of ye Parish of Port Royall, in ye Island aforesaid (Jamaica,) appoints "his trusty friend William Smith, of Carolina, merchant, his true and lawfull Attorney, to demand of Simon Valentine, of Carolina. shopkeeper, all and every such Debt and Debts. Sum and Sums &e, as may be owing to him." This deed is dated July 3, 17001. His name
5
also appears on p. #10, on a document dat- ed January 24, 1704. In the volume, 1602-3, ve find him several times as a surety on administration bonds. His name occurs on pp 28. 256, 200 and 351. The earliest of these documents bears the date of 1596.
The last reference to this Simon Valen- tine is interesting, as it is the earliest rec- ord here of a Jew holding land. In the volume of Miscellaneous Records, 1714- 1717, (p. 238.) there is a record of a mort- gage of a farm of 350 acres from Mordicai Nathan to Henry Peronneau which land, the deed tells us. "was formerly purchased by the said Mordical Nathan and Symond Valentine. Deceased, being Joyn purchers, whom the said Mordicai has sur- vived." It may be explained here, that according to the old law, when two people bought a piece of land in common. should one of them die, the land belonged to the survivor. This law has since been re- pealed by Statute.
The next document of interest is an old will, that is to be found in the volume, "Wills, 1671-1727."
Abraham Isack, of Cyty of New Yorke, "being bound to sea, and therefore being present in good health, but not knowing when it may please the Almighty God to take me out of ye world," makes his will. It is dated May 26. 1709, and was recorded in Charleston February 20, 1710.
It is now some years before the records make further mention of Jews. In 1739 we find two documents concerning Joseph To- bias, Shopkeeper-one a lease and the other a transfer of property. They are to be found in the Mesne Conveyance Rec- ords. (W. 471 and PP 606.) We find this same Joseph Tobias in one of the invento- ries of an estate. (Mesne Conveyance, 1743- 50. p. 75.)
The last of the records that I have been
Ó
able to find occurs in the Probate Records for 1736-40. On p. 3 there is a letter from New York, dated November 25, 1743, and addressed to Messrs Daniel and Thomas La Roche, of Charleston. Mr Jacob Frank refers to his nephew, Mr Moses Solomons, and some difficulty which the sald Moses Solomons had had with some London ship- ping house. On the next page David Franks, of Charles Town, Cent. declares that the letter signed Jacob Frank is the handwriting of his father. It would seem from another letter here recorded that Franks had connections in Lisbon. On page 300 there is a hond of Samuel Levy and Moses Salamons of Charlestown, mer- chants, to Daniel La Roche & Thomas La Roche, of Winyau. for €2.05.6.8.
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.