USA > South Carolina > Charleston County > Charleston > The Jews of South Carolina; a survey of the records at present existing in Charleston > Part 7
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
On Oct 27, 1706, amongst passengers ar- rived, are Mr Franks and daughter, In the Postscript to the Gazette of May 11, 1767, we meet with Philip Abraham and Samuel Nunez Cardozo. On June 1, 1767, we read that "On the 26th inst Mr Lopez and many other passengers embarked for Rhode Island." The Lopez family, how. ever, did not settle in Charleston till after the Revolution. On July 6, 1767, Mr Joseph Jacobs arrived from Philadelphia and on Aug S. we have mention of Francis Cohen. On Aug 1. 17:1, Mordecai Myers advertises and again from Georgetown on Aug 25, 1772. On Sept 19, 1771 we meet with Myer Moses for the first time in the Gazettes, though he nad been living here for some years. On November 1. 177 ... there is mention made of Jacob Ramos and on December 6, 173, we read the fol- lowing exceedingly interesting notice:
FRANCIS SALVADOR ARRIVES.
"More than one hundred passengers are come in the vessels that have arrived here since our last. Amongst them: FRANCIS SALVADOR."
Picciotto in his "Sketches of Anglo-Jew- ish History," pp. 161-4, has given us a most interesting history of the Salvador family .- Strange to say, we in Charleston know a great deal more about the later story of two of the most illustrious mem- bers of that distinguished family-Joseph and Francis Salvador -- than he does. Pic- ciotto seems to know nothing of their
13
laser career. i will complete his narrative when I come to Joseph Salvador in the period after the Revolution.
Suffice it for the present to say that the wealthy family of Salvador was over- wheimed by two disastrous misfortunes. the earthquake at Lisbon and the failure of the Dutch East India Company. These calamities brought the Salvadors to the brink of ruin. Joseph Salvador was still possessed of lands in America-If),00 acres in Ninety Six District in South Car- olina. In the M. C. Records F 4, p. 2+2. there is a power of attorney from Joseph Salvador, Esq, of the City of London. merchant, now being in the city of Bris- tol, to Richard Andrews Rapley, dated Sept 25th, 1769. This locument recites that Joseph Salvador owns 100.00 acres cf land in South Carolina. that squatters had set- tied upon some of it and that he is about to make a right, true and legal recovery of all rent or arrears of rent then already due and that might thereafter become due *** and to keep others from obtaining possession in futura, he gives the said Rapley, of the city of London, gentleman, {then on his departure into foreign parts.) his power of attorney to look after his af- fairs and authorizes him to sell some 45,000 acres. This deed is recorded in Charleston on Feb 14th, 1774.
In 1773, Francis Salvador, the nephew and son-in-law of Joseph Salvador. deter- mined to come to South Carolina and we have seen that he arrived in Charleston in December of that year. The story re- Jated in Picciotto that Mrs Joshua Mendes Da Costa, the daughter of Joseph Saiva- dor. gave up a part of her marriage set- tlement to furnish funds for Francis Sal- vador's expedition, is not probable, nor is it borne out by our records here.
On May 13, 1771. Francis Savador buys from Joseph Salvador per Richard An-
14
drews Rapley, his attorney, 5160 acres of land, for å consideration of £14,000 lawful money of South Carolina. (0 4, p .12.) On May 16 he buys 921 acres more (M 4, p. MR. On June 1 he buys 300 acres of land adjoining his, from Michell Duvall, (M ៛, p. 282.)
On Feb 22, 1775, Joseph Salvador conveys a large tract of land to Rebecca Mendes Da Costa, widow. "to satisfy a judgment which the said Rebecca Mendes Da Costa. had obrained against him." (T 4, p. 1.) and on March S, 1775, Rebecca Mendes Da. Costa sends to Francis Salvador, now in South Carolina. a letter of Attorney au- thorizing him to dispose of this land. (R 4. p. 430.) This transaction is apparently the basis of Picciotto's story, but had nothing to do with Francis Salvador's expedition, for he had been in South Carolina since Dec 1173.
A DISTINGUISHED CITIZEN.
Francis Salvador came to South Carolina in troublous times. The Revolution was brewing. Scarcely had he settled down when he threw himself heart and soul in- to the movement for independence. He came down to Charles Town as a Deputy from Ninety Six to the Provincial Con- gress of 1775, and such was the confidence that he inspired, that he was placed on several important committees. He was also a Deputy to the second Provincial Congress of 1775-6, the Congress which de- clared South Carolina an independent State. In July 1776, the Indians made a raid into Ninety Six District and mur- dered quite a number of the inhabitants. Col Andrew Williamson, commanding the Militia Regiment of Ninety Six District. collected his militia and proceeded against them and a detachment of regulars was sent from Charles Town to assist him.
:5
Salvador seems to have been an aide to Col Williamson. At the battle which took place at Essenecca he met his tragic fate.
I cannot give a better description of his life and character than that given in the 2nd Vol of Drayton's "Memoirs," pp. 347-9, nor is there a better account of his death than that given by Col Williamson in his letter to W. H. Drayton, published in Gibbes's "Documents, " (1764-1776, p. 125.) I would only point out that this letter is erroneously headed and dated in Gibbes. I will let Drayton speak for himself:
"He was the grandson of Francis Salva- dor, and the son of Jacob Salvador, ot England, who died when his son Francis was about two years old. Shortly after his father's death, his mother gave birth to his brother, Moses, who is still living in The Hague, having married a daugh- ter of the Baron Suasso. Both of these young gentlemen were liberally educated by a private tutor and the best master, and were taught those accomplishments suitable to their wealth and rank in life. Upon coming of age, each of them in- herited £60,000 sterling, and Francis on his return from France, married his first cousin, Sarah Salvador, second daughter of Joseph Salvador, his uncle; receiving with her a portion of £13.000 sterling. Mr Francis Salvador, after this marriage, re- sided at Twickenham, near his mother and step-father. Abraham Prado, but hav- ing impaired his fortune by some unfor- tunate speculations, he came to South Carolina about the end of 1773, Intending to settle here and have his wife, his son and three daughters from England with him, but his unfortunate death prevented their removal. * * * About the year 1774, Mr Francis Salvador purchased lands and negroes in South Carolina, and not wish- ing to live alone. he resided with his int !- mate friend, Richard A. Rapley, at Coro-
16
neka, commonly called Cornacre, in Nine. ty Six District. His manners were those of a polished gentleman, and as such he was intimately known and esteemed by the first Revolutionary characters in South Carolina. He also possessed their confidence in a great degree, as his lit- erary correspondences with them suffi- cientiy proves, and at the time of his death both he and his friend. Mr Rapley, were of the ten Representatives for Nine- ty Six District in the General Assembly of South Carolina. When the irruption of the savages brought distress upon his neigh- bours and one of their children sought refuge at his dwelling from the bloody tomahawk, his warm heart directed him to their relief. Against the savage foe ha volunteered his services, and at the side of his friend Major Williamson, he re ceived those wounds which sacrificed his life in the service of his adopted coun- try."
From now on we meet with many new rames. I have hitherto gone into very minute detail, and while my note-books contain practically exhaustive notices of nearly every individual whom I mention, no useful end would be served by com- plete references. Newspaper advertise- ments and mortgages are very much alike. I would call attention to this point, however, that there are very, very few men who lived in Charleston whom we will not meet in some connection or other in the records. I shall henceforth only mention names, save where there is ocoa- sion for special comment.
DIRECTORY 1770-1783.
Here, then. is a complete directory of the Jews whom I find In Charleston be- tween the years 1770 and 1722:
Aaron, Solomon.
Abrahams, Emanuel.
Abrahams, Isaac Brisco. Abraharos, Josephi. Abrahams, Juda. Abrahams, Levy. Alexander, Abraham. Cardozo. David Nunez.
Cohen, Abraham.
Cohen, Gershon. Cohen. Is.
Cohen, Jacob.
Cohen, Moses. Cohen, Philip.
Cohen, Philip Jacob.
Da Costa, Abraham.
Da Costa, Isaac, Sr.
Da Costa. Isaac, Jr.
Da Costa, Joseph.
Da Costa, Samuel.
De La Motta, Emanuel.
Delyon, Abraham.
Delyon, Isaac.
De Palacios, Joseph, Sr.
De Palacios, Joseph, Jr.
Ellazer, Moses.
Harris, Mordecai.
Harris, Moses.
Hart, Joshua
Hart, Philip.
Jacobs, Israel.
Jacobs, Jacob.
Jones. Samuel.
Joseph, Israel.
Lazarus, Marks. Levi, Solomon. Levy, Ezekiel.
Levy, Hart.
Levy, Michael.
Levy, Moses Sim.
Levy, Nathan.
Levy, Samuel.
Minis, Philip. Mordecai Samuel.
Moses, Abraham. Moses. Barnart or Barnard, Br. Moses, Barnart. Jr.
18
Moses, Henry.
Moses, Jacob.
Moses, Myer or Meyer.
Moses, Philip.
Myers, Joseph.
Myers, Mordecai.
Pollock, Samuel. (?)
Pollock, Solomon, (?) (an express rider.)
Salomons, Myer.
Sarzedas, David.
Sasportas. Abraham.
Seixas, Abraham.
Sheftall, Levi.
Simons, Sampson.
Simons, Saul.
Solomo, Zadok. (?)
Solomons, Joseph.
Spitzer, Bernard Moses.
Tobias, Jacob.
Tobias, Joseph.
Tores, Benjamin.
To compile this list I have used every possible source of information, both here and in Columbia, viz: The various Ga- zettes, the records in the offices of Pro- bate and Mesne Conveyance, the "Grant Books" and finally the tombstones in the old cemetery here. I have even incorpo- rated some names of persons who have letters awaiting them at the postoffice. A few of these may not even have been res- idents of Charleston at all. There may be two or three who are not Jews and some, too, who were not here during the latter part of the Revolution. In all there are only 68 names. This paves the way for an intelligent discussion of the part played in the Revolution by the Jews of South Car- olina and which I reserve for my next article.
.
19
THE DAGGETT PRTG CO. CHASN. 8.C
THE JEWS OF
SOUTH CAROLINA . .
A Survey of the Records at Present Existing in Charleston.
... BY ...
D., BARNETT A. ELZAS, Rabbi of K. K. Beth Elohim.
III The Jews in the Revolution,
The Jews of South Carolina ...
The Jews in the Revolution.
Copyright The News and Courier, 1903.
I have brought my story down to a most interesting period. To describe the part played by the Jews of South Carolina, or rather by the Jews of Charleston, for there is nothing in the records, with one or two exceptions, as far as I have been able to ascertain, of any other Jews of South Carolina who saw service in the field, is a task quite easy and yet difficult. Till now the story has not been written. A few traditional tales, distorted accord- ing as the imagination of the story-teller was more or less vigorous and still fur- ther distorted by the imagination of the editor, are all that we now possess. No attempt has hitherto been made to go to original sources. Hence it is that the list of traditional items that found their way into the scrappy notices in Leeser's "Oc- cident" of fifty years ago have gone the rounds of the newspapers and the books, and have been so often repeated that they have come to be looked upon as narra- tives of fact. Read the story of the Jews of Charleston where you will, you will find nothing but the same old stories told over and over again. The trouble with all past writers without exception has been that they have made no attempt to ascertain the facts. Our present data
are all of them traditions which, while containing a germ of truth, are like all traditions, largely unreliable. This is strange in view of the fact that historical material in Charleston is so abundant that it it is possible to write the story of the Jews of Charleston in the eighteenth century in almost as complete detail and with the same historical accuracy that one could write their history of twenty years ago. The newspapers are here al- most complete. The records are here al- most complete. All the historian needs is to know where to look, how to look and for what to look. This will furnish him with the facts and these will testify quite as eloquently to the value of the Jew as a citizen, as the glittering generalities and the specious absurdities that have till now passed current as history, We are, it seems to me, far enough removed from the scene to view the story in its true perspective. I shall continue, as before. to let the records as far as possible speak for themselves.
THE JEW A GOOD CITIZEN.
If it be the verdict of history that the Jew has been an Important factor in the material development of every country in which he has lived, it is equally true that he has everywhere manifested his appre- ciation of the protection and freedom which have been vouchsated to him by his willingness to bear the full burdens of citizenship even to the extent of ungrudg- ingly laying down his life in his country's defence. One needs no better illustration of Jewish patriotism than the story of the Jews of Sonth Carolina. To appreciate the part that the Jews of this State played in the Revolution, however, one must pos- sess an adequate knowledge of the his- tory of South Carolina as well as a knowledge of the local field. Without this
2
local knowledge one. can at best only evolve a more or less imaginative pictura from bis inner consciousness-an un- worthy performance in these days of sci- entific attainment and honest research. But to come back to the story.
In my last article I printed a list, which I am satisfied is practically exhaustive, of all the Jews who were in Charleston between 1.70 and 1789. I omitted a couple of names of men who, like Moses Lindo, died prior to 17:5. In all there were names. I would leave my readers under an entirely wrong impression, however, if I did not give them some further informa- tion about this list, Information that will change the aspect of this number materi- ally.
Of these 68 names I am morally certa'n that one at least is not & Jew-Solomon Pollock. He was an express rider in the country and I obtained his name from a Revolutionary "Indent" in Columbia. I have my doubts also about Moses Harris, Mordecai Myers belongs to Georgetown and is only here at the latter part of the Rev- olution. So does Abraham Cohen, though he was in the militia of Charleston during the siege. Ezekiel Levy has a letter wait- ing for him at the postoffice on April 21, 1772, which is still there on July 3. Ha probably does not belong here at all. Mordecai Harris should be stricken from my list. His name appears on a petition printed in the South Carolina and Amer- ican General Gazette for November 28. 1778. This petition is halt destroyed and I have since discovered is a. Georgia peti- tion. The name of Joseph Solomon should be added. Benjamin Tores did not como here till 1782. What has more bearing on our discussion, however, is the fact that of this number no less than 21 do not ap- pear in Charleston prior to 1mm. Many of them came from Savannah in that year.
Bome came still later. Here Is the list: Abrahams, Joseph. De La Motta, Emanuel.
De Lyon, Abranam. De Lyon, Isaac. De Palacios, Joseph. Jacobs, Jacob. Levy. Hart.
Levy, Michael.
Levy. Samuel Minis, Philip.
Moses, Barnart.
Moses, Jacob.
Moses, Philip.
Myers. Joseph.
Pollock, Samuel.
Sasportas, Abraham.
Seixas, Abraham.
Sheftall, Levi.
Simons, Sampson.
Simons, Saul.
Spitzer, Bernard Moses.
Joshua Hart left Charleston in 1779 and did not return until 1734, when he makes an announcement to his old friends and customers. Bernard Moses Spitzer like- wise leaves for the West Indies in that year. It must not be forgotten, too, that there were Jews at this time in George- town. Camden, Black Mingo and Beau- fort, whose names appear in Charleston from time to time. With this preliminary explanation the way is now clear for a better understanding of our inquiry.
THE STATUS IN 1775-6.
I will now very briefly indicate the post- tion of South Carolina in the Revolution. This is necessary for a correct under- standing of what follows. I shall make no attempt at fine writing, as my entire concern is to bring out the facts.
South Carolina was a favored colony. She had none of the grievances, e. g. of Massachusetts. Her trade with the
1
mother country was large. Her agricul- tural products were sold at good prices to England and her industries were fostered by generous bounties on the part of the home Government. Her only grievance was the question of "home rule" and that question was of little concern to the peo- ple at large. The only aggrieved ones were the intellectual and ambitious classes and with such a commercial pop- ulation could scarcely be expected to be in sympathy. The masses were naturally hostile to a revolution which threatened to disturb the quiet progress of a trade of which, having interests unlike those of New England, they had nothing to com- plain.
The population of South Carolina, too, was a very mixed one. South Carolina was an English colony and the English are by nature loyal. So are the Scotch and they were numerous. The foreign set- tlers were opposed to the Revolution, and it is only what is to be expected, there- fore, that public opinion in South Carolina should have been well divided.
Not that the sentiments of the masses were always known. To use a homely il- lustration: A merchant to-day, if he is wise, does not go out of his way to pro- claim his political views to every custom- er that enters his store. He could talk freely with far more impunity to-day than he could have spoken at the beginning of the Revolution. The commercial popula- tion simply watched the course of events, awaited developments and later on showed unmistakably where they stood. These facts are forcibly set forth in two bril- liant articles from the pen of W. Gilmore Simms in the July and October numbers of the Southern Quarterly Review for 1848-articles which ought to be read and read again by all who are Interested in the history of South Carolina.
5
Jews are proverbially loyal to the ruling Power. As was the case with the rest of the population, Jewish sentiment was divided. We shall see later that there were a number of Jews whose sentiments were known to be Pro-British. The num- ber of Jews who served in the field. how- ever and who rendered other service to the Revolutionary cause-in proportion to their total number-was phenomenally large. Of this the records leave no doubt.
THE MILITIA LAWS.
Before referring to these records, how- ever, it would be well to glance at the militia system of South Carolina at the outbreak of and during the Revolution. I shall only take note of pertinent points.
Every man between the ages of 16 and 6 who was able to bear arms was com- pelled to enroll himself in some militia company. Prior to 1775 he could enroll himself in any company he pleased, but subsequent to November 20, 1775, he could only enroll himself in the district of the regiment to which he belonged. (S. C. G. November 28, 1775.)
By a resolution of the Provincial Con- gress, dated June 17, 1775, volunteer com- panies of not less than fifty might organ- ize themselves into a company of foot, choosing their own officers. (Supplement to S. C. G. September 7, 1775.)
By the Act of 1778 a company consisted of 60 men. (Statutes of South Carolina, Vol 9, p 667.)
In the same Act is it further enacted: "That there shall not be formed any vol- unteer company in this State after the passing of this Act." * * * (Ibid p 667.)
The duties of a militiaman were "to ap- pear completely armed once In every fort- night for muster, train and exercise," to do patrol duty and to be drafted for a limited time-usually 30 or 60 days accord-
6
ing to the season of the year, when deemed necessary by the Governor .or Commander-in-Chief. (Ibid. See also Ga- zette of the State of South Carolina March 10, 1:73.)
A man could furnish a substitute and thus be himself exempt from militia duty. S. C. G. March 10. 1722.)
Amongst those exempt from military service Are clergymen and teachers. (Statutes of South Carolina, Vol 9, p 629.)
And here I would remark that it would seem that these militia laws were not very carefully observed. I And one pre- sentment after another of the grand jurics calling attention to their nagiect. I would likewise point out that every man was not physically able to do military duty. Many were excused. Moultrie himself tells us this in referring to those who surrendered after the siege.
"This threat brought out the aged, the timid, the disaffected and the infirmi, many of them who had never appeared during the whole siege. * ** I saw the column march out and was surprised to see it so large; but many of them we had excused from age and infirmities." (Memoirs, Vol 2, pp 108-9.)
We can now proceed intelligently to deal with the records. These records are by no means as incomplete as we have hitherto thought. We have so many side sources of information that I may claim that it is possible to present a picture of the part that the Jews of South Carolina. played in the Revolution with almost ab- solute fidelity. We must, however, dis- miss completely the fictions of the early writers.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION.
What are these side sources of informa- tien? We have first of all the record and pension office and the bureau of pensiony
7
at Washington; we have a vast number of Revolutionary records in this State. There is that wonderful Emmet Collection in the New York Public Library. There are a number of contemporary diaries available to us. There are the tombstones in our cemetery, and lastly the files of the newspapers, which rarely fail to men- tion military services in the obituary no- tices of deceased patriots. We have seen what Jews were here during the Revolu- tion. We shall soun see what a large por- tion of them we can account for. Let us now proceed with the story, which is plain sailing.
The first real fighting in which the Charles Town militia were called into ser- vice-but the Charles Town militia took no part in the fight-was the battle of Fort Moultrie in June, IN6. Fort Moultrie was garrisoned by South Carolina regulars and the battle was fought by them alone. Of course the militia were in service in Charles Town, but they took no part in the engagement. There were quite a num- ber of Jews in the Charles Town militia. Who they were I shall tell later. There do not appear to have been any Jews amongst the South Carolina regulars.
The result of the battle of Fort Moui- trie was to insure undisturbed peace to South Carolina from June, 1776, to May, 1779. Trade went on pretty much as usual. The people married and gave in marriage, and beyond internal dissensions on ac- count of the Loyalists there is nothing to be noted of interest.
LUSHINGTON'S COMPANY.
Between 1776 and 1778 Richard Lushing- ton was promoted to be captain in the Charles Town regiment of militia. His company included nearly all of the Jews of Charles Town who fought in the Rey- olution, and that for reasons we have al-
ready seen. Soldiers had to enroll them- selves in the district in which they lived. Richard Leshington's district extended on King street. from Broad street to Charles Town Neck-the modern Calhoun street. King street was then as now a principal business street and most of the Jews had their stores there. I could give- the list of Jews who lived on King street, but this would serve no useful purpose. Of the names of Lushington's company that have come down to us I have in a former arti- cle pointed out, the Jewish names are in a decided minority.
Lushington's company took part in sev- eral engagements. It fought in the battle of Beanfort in February, 179. Here Jo- seph Solomon was killed. {Gazette of the State of South Carolina. March 10, 1779.) The Charles Town militla likewise took part in the attempt to recapture Savan- nah in the same year. Here David Nu- nez Cardozo distinguished himself. (See inscription on his tombstone here. also obituary notice in the Charleston Courier of July 10, 1835.)
That the Jews both of Charles Town and Savannah had done their full duty to the patriot cause is attested by a splen- did piece of uncontradicted contemporary testimony.
AN EXTRAORDINARY LETTER.
I remember listening some twenty years "ago-long before I left England-to a powerful Jewish sermon on the subject of "How Shall we Answer Calumny?"' The preacher referred to the over-sensitiveness of Jews and their tendency to rush into print whenever any allusion was made to them which might be construed into a real or imaginary offence. He warned his hearers that we Jews should be careful not to manifest irritation at the writings
9
of every anonymous seriboler. If the de- fence becomes perpetuated, so does the attack. He illustrated nis theme by a reference to the book of Josephus against Apion. This blundering ignoramus wou. 1 never have been heard of but for Jose- phus's reply. I was forcibly reminded of both the sermon and the illustration when I came across the following letter in the South Carolina and American General Gazette of December 3, 1773. Mrs Crouch's paper containing the libel is no longer in existence, and while the attack has come down to us by reason of the reply, we have in this instance at least no cause to regret it. The style of the letter is quaint. but its contents are telling. Here it is:
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.