USA > South Carolina > Charleston County > Charleston > The Jews of South Carolina; a survey of the records at present existing in Charleston > Part 9
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
Of the twenty undeniable mistakes of fact in Mr Huhner's thousand-word arti- cle he selects eight in which he imagines he has a good defence. He even under- takes to correct our ignorance. We shall see how well he succeeds. I shall refer to his statements in the order in which they are made in his "last word:"
First. As to Myer Moses. Says Mr Huh- ner: "Nowhere, either in the Year Book for 1886 or in the Statutes, do we find Jr after Mr Moses's name, and the name is invariably found as Myer, not Meyer, as Mr Salley has It." Mr Huhner is right. The writer in the year book does not add Jr to the name, nor had he any occasion to do so. Had he dreamt, however, that the time might come when Mr Huhner would undertake to write on the history of South Carolina and make a man who had died in 17ST either a member of the Legislature in 1810, or a Commissioner of Education in 1812, he would doubtless have added this landmark and other informa- tion for his guidance, but unfortunately he was not to know this. As for the spell- ing "Meyer," which Mr Huhner thinks is invariably "Myer," it is interesting to ob- serve that the father wrote his own name "Meyer Moses"-I published his autograph signature recently-and in the office of mesne conveyance here, where the deeds are supposed to be true copies of the orig- inals, the name of the son is never spelt in any other way.
Mr Huhner next proceeds to enlighten us as to what is meant when "ive" speak of board of education, and claims again that the Act of 1311 was the beginning of the public school system as such in South Carolina. "This is the view," says Mr Huhner, "taken by all writers of impor- tance." This is Mr Huhner, but not fact. McCrady will certainly be accepted as a
2
writer of importance on matters relating to South Carolina; indeed, this distin- quished author has given us the most comprehensive study on this subject that has till now appeared. Let the student read MeCrady's essay on "Education in South Carolina" in Volume 4 of the Collee- tions of the South Carolina Historical So- ciety, and he will find overwhelming proof that the public school system of South Carolina was a gradual evolution and that the Act of 1511 merely modified the system that had been in existence uninterruptedly for over 1(0) years. In this essay, which was considered of sufficient importance to be reproduced by the United States Bureau of Education. McCrady mercilessly exposes the superficiality of MeMaster and no one familiar with the literature of the history of South Carolina would to-day think of quoting that writer as an au- thority. Such authorities are good enough for historical scribblers and historical "in- corporators," but we have a right to de- mand better knowledge of the sources from men who write in encyclopaedias and who proclaim themselves specialists.
With reference to Moses Lindo. Mr Huh- ner can only repeat what he said in his first letter, as though repeating what he said in his first letter would alter the fact that he had stated in his paper that Moses Lindo was "among those who were in the army," or that "Inspector General for South Carolina," as he calls him in his ar- ticle in the Encyclopaedia, is meaningless except as a military title.
Mr Huhner again tangles himself up with Salvador. In his article Mr Huhner informed us that Salvador was a mem- ber of the "Colonial Assembly" as early as ITA. I will not go over the ground again-it seems to be too much for him- but will merely point out that not a
3
single one of Mr Huhner's authorities show him to be a member of any body earlier than 1775. Perhaps Mr Huhner's mind can take so much in.
Mir Huhner next tells how it came to pass that he knew nothing about Jewish Tories in Charleston. Though the Peti- tion to Clinton is referred to by McCrady, that author does not specifically mention the Jewish names, nor are they given in any of Mr Huhner's books, so that it is unfair to say that he ought to have known about them. He knew that Sabine's "Loy- alists" mentioned Isaac Delyon; he knew that Isaac Delyon had been amerced as a citizen of South Carolina, but further re- search (sic) convinced him that the indi- vidual mentioned belonged to Georgia! "Mr Salley is in error," he says, "in con- cluding that Isaac Delyon belonged to Charleston. He probably had some prop- erty there, but that was all. The author- ities mentioned by Mr Salley do not refer to a South Carolina Tory." (!) Mr Hub- ner is really funny, though he does not seem to possess a very keen sense of hu- mor. Mr Salley, of course, knew what he was writing about-Mr Huhner makes the story up as he goes along. Isaac Delyon became a resident of Charles Town early in 1779. He advertises regularly in the Gazettes for many years, at first in part- nership with Barnart Moses, then in busi- ness by himself. The deeds-and there are many of them in the office of mesne con- veyance here-describe him as "Of Charles Town, merchant," yet Mr Huhner, with an assurance that Is amazing, boldly tells his readers that "he probably had some prop- erty there, but that was all." Nor is he any more successful in his attempt to show that Mordecal Sheftall was Commis- sary General for South Carolina and Geor- gia. His own authorities refute his con- tention.
Most remarkable, finally, Is Mr Huhner's defence of Lushington's company of Jews, and this in the face of the evidence that was adduced against it. We have, he says, the positive statement of Col Worth- ington In 1524, a letter to Jared Sparks, and even a. statement in Fishell's "Chronological notes" prepared in 1850. We are not warranted in disregarding such "positive proof!" I do not think It necessary to add anything to what I have already written on this subject. There is no doubt about it, Mr Huhner is a genius. I regret that my style of criticism does not appeal to him. I confess that I don't like it myself. but I like Mr Huhner's methods still less, in dealing with which one need not be too particular as to the choice of ways and means. But I must re- turn to my subject.
In my monograph on Joseph Salvador 1 thought that I had exhausted the refer- ences to him in the records of South Car- olina. There is one document, however, that I had not found by reason of the fact that it was not recorded here till 1804. For the sake of completeness I will mention it here. It shows that Joseph Salvador was still poorer than I imagined him when he came to South Carolina. The deed is recorded in the office of mesne conveyance on September 19, 1804. (N 7, p 140.) It is dated March 2, 1775, between Joseph Salvador on the first part, and Phineas Serra, Moses Isaac Levey (Levy,) Emanuel Baruk Louvado (Louisada,) Nathan Modigliani, Solomon D'Anynilar (D'Aguilar,) Samuel Haine, Joseph Fran- co, David Franco, Jacob Consalo, (Con- sales,› Rebecca Mendes Decosta, Benja- min D'Anynilar, (D'Aguilar,) Jacon Fran- co, Francis Franco-all of London-who had advanced and lent to him the sum of
5
23,000 in certain proportions. He makes over to them sas0 acres of land excepting such tracts as had been already soll hy Rapley, his attorney. and the tract se- cured to Rebecca Mendes Da Costa.
-
My story to-day will cover the period from the end of the Revolution to the year 1900. There is nothing very remark- able that happened in this period. not were there any Jews here of special prom- inence. Most of those who had left during the period of British occupation returned in 1783, or shortly after. The Jews nad suffered in common with their neighbors. and many of them. comparatively wealthy before the Revolution, had to begin the battle of life all over again. Many of them engaged in the "Vendue," .or auc- rioneer and brokerage business. They seem to have possessed the confidence of the community and to have soon re- gained their former flourishing condition, a circumstance that roused the envy of their less successful competitors, for we find more than one spiteful reference to them in the Gazettes of this period-a sure sign of hard times. (See e. g. Gazette of the State of South Carolina for September 8, 1755.)
Commercially, South Carolina recovered rapidly from the effects of the Revolution, and in the years succeeding that epoch- making event there was a great influx of Jewish population. Jews came here trom everywhere -- from England, Germany, France. Russia, Poland, Curacoa, Jamai- ca, St Eustatius, St Domingo, Newport. New York and Philadelphia. I hope in the near future to publish in full the complete list of inscriptions on the tomb- stones in our old cemetery, which give us a vast amount of information concerning the origin of many of our early settlers. in
6
1800 or shortly thereafter Charleston had the largest Jewish population in America.
Communally, too, we notice a great de- velopment during the period under con- sideration. From 1150 to 1.57 the small congregation worshipped in a small wood- en building in Union street, near Queen street. From 1737 to 1764 they were at 318 King street, near Hasell street, in a house "standing back in the yard." In 1764 they purchased the old burial ground at Coming street from Isaac Da Costa. (M. C., Volume 3, p 108.) I shall tell the story of this old ground, which is still in use, elsewhere. In the same year the Synagogue was removed to a building in Beresford street. near King where they remained till 1751, when they rented a lot and brick building in Hasell street from Joseph Tobias. This building had been occupied as a cotton gin factory, and was now altered and arranged as a place of worship. It was known as the "Old Syn- agogue." This property, with an adjoin- ing lot, was afterwards purchased from the estate of Joseph Tobias in 1792. (M. C .. Volume M 6, pp 45 and 48.) This was not the site, however, on which the present Synagogue stands. The site of the "New Synagogue" was bought from Susannah Quince in 1791. (H. 6., p 98.)
In 1791, we are informed. the Congrega- tion had increased to 53 families. number- ing upwards of 400 persons. In this year it became incorporated by an Act of the Legislature. (Statutes of South Carolina, Volume 8, pp. 161-3.) The petition for in- corporation is preserved in the "Occi- dent," Volume 1, pp. 384-5. I believe that the original is still in Columbia, though I was not able to put my hands on it dur- ing my recent visit there. It is entitled "The petition of the wardens and elders of the Jewish Congregation in Charleston,
called Beth Elohim or House of God." This brings me to a very interesting ques- tion: Was "Beth Elohim the name of the old Congregation, or was it only called Beth Elohim for short? As far as I know the question has never been raised.
I was particularly struck by two be- quests in the will of Joseph Salvador, fwhich I printed in full abstract, with the exception of a single item, which I de- signedly omitted,) and which are as fol- lows:
£100 sterling to Joseph Da Costa, in trust, to pay the same to the Portuguese Congregation in the City of Charleston, known by the name Beth Elohim Unveh Shallom. or the House of the Lord, and Mansion of Peace," and to Mr Gershon Cohen £00 sterling for the German Jewish Congregation in the City of Charleston. known by the name of Beth Elohim, or House of the Lord."
To doubt the evidence of such a record one must have the most positive of proof, yet this record is not without its diffi- culties. Unfortunately the void "Return Books" are no longer in existence. These would have helped us materially in our inquiry.
First, as to the name "Beth Elohim Un- veh Shallom," the late Nathaniel Levin. who wrote his sketch of this Congregation in 1843, and who undoubtedly had seen our oldest book of records, does not refer to it except by its present name, Beth Elo- him, nor does any other writer, but that Is not strange. seeing that practically nothing new was written until I published my article in the Jewish Comment, and which was largely "incorporated" with re- markable variations in the article in the Jewish Encyclopaedia. In 1784 David. Co- hen leaves five guineas to K. K. Beth Elo- him. (Willis A, p 359.) In 1787 Joseph Myers
leaves three-fourths of his estate to K. K. Beth Elohim. (Wills B, p 128.)
It looked very much as though there was some mistake in Salvador's will. In historical matters, however, it does not pay to jump at conclusions. I waited pa- tiently and was rewarded a few days ago by stumbling across another will, which settled the question. In the same voi- ume. ( Wills A. p 597.) Moses Molina leaves 215 sterling to the "Portuguese Jew Con- gregation of Beth Elohim Unve Shaiom." There might be a mistake in one will, but hardly in two. We may, therefore, take it as proven, that the original name of the Charleston Congregation was not "Beth Elohim," but "Beth Elohim Unveh Sha- lom," and that it was called "Beth Elo- him" for brevity.
But we are not yet out of difficulty. Do we know anything of a German-Jewish Congregation in Charleston in 1786, known by the name of "Beth Elohim?" Apart from this reference in the will of Joseph Salvador, I know no place where such a German-Jewish Congregation is men- tioned. Though there are many bequests in the wills to Beth Elohim, there is not a single one to a German-Jewish Congre- gation. This is remarkable in view of the fact that with few exceptions these be- quests were made by those who were not Portuguese Jews by birth. None of the contemporary writers who have referred to the Charleston Jewish community, so far as I have till now been able to ascer- tain, know of more than one Congrega- tion and place of worship. Besides this there is the fact that in the eighteenth century the custom was not usual among German Jews of giving names to congre- gations or synagogues. And if they gave such a name to a congregation in Charles- ton, would they have given the same name as that which the Portuguese Congrega-
9
tion bore? And finally, there is no rea- son for the existence of such a congrega- tion here in 1736. All writers have taken particular pains to emphasize the fact of the prejudice or antagonism that existed between the German and Portuguese Jews. There is no trace of such prejudice or antagonism in the history of the Jews of South Carolina prior to 1800. German and Portuguese Jews intermarried freely. and the only lines of demarkation be- tween them were the natural dis- tinctions of birth and education. As a matter of fact. except at the very be- ginning of the communal history of Beth Elohim, German Jews have always formed a decided majority. When the eight cor- ner-stones of the "New Synagogue" were laid in 1792, of the eight men who laid laid them: Israel Joseph, Philip Hart, Lyon Moses. Isaac Moses, Emanuel Abra - hams, Mark Tongues, Hart Moses and Abraham Moses Sr, seven, I believe, were German Jews, and of the committee of arrangements on this occasion-Daniel Hart, Gershon Cohen and Moses C. Levy. two at least. if not all three, were German Jews. I do not care to be dogmatic, espe- cially in the face of record evidence, but I would certainly like some additional proof of the existence of a German-Jewish Congregation here in 1756. Till further proof is adduced I shall continue to doubt. But I must get back to my main theme.
In 1702, the Synagogue being too small, the Congregation determined to erect a larger piace of worship. The members contributed liberally and the requisite $20,000 was soon raised. I shall not go into details here. These details are fully given, both in the Occident (Volume I, pp 250-89, ) and also in the Year Book for 1883. (Pp $06-S.) The corner-stones were laid on Fri-
IO
day. September 14, 1792, with elaborate ceremonial. conducted "by the rules and regulations of the ancient and honorable fraternity of Free Masons."
The Synagogue was completed in 1794 and was consecrated on Friday, the 19th of September, of that year. At this con- aceration there were present Governor Moultrie, the civil and military officers of the State, the municipal authorities, the clergy and many citizens. There is a no- tice of the ceremonies in the South Caro- lina State Gazette of September 20, 1794.
But I must again go back a little. On the establishment of the Federal Govern- ment in 1:00 the Jewish community of Charleston addressed a letter of congrat- ulation to Washington on his elevation to the Presidency. They also joined the Jew- ish Congregations of Philadelphia, New York and Richmond in a similar letter. I will not reprint these letters, which can be referred to in the Year Book for 1883, Pp 003-5. Washington's reply to the in- dividual letter is printed in the Year Book for 1384, pp 230-1 and to the joint letter, in Wolf's "The American Jew as Citizen and Patriot," pp 58-9. The original reply to the Charleston Congregation was probably burnt in the great fire of 1838.
The character of the Jewish community in 1730 may be judged by the following in- cident, which has been preserved to us in the Occident. (Volume 1, pp 009-40.) In that year a Constitutional Convention was held In Columbia and in the election of delegates to that Convention the Jews took an active part. Grateful for the as- sistance which the Jews had rendered him, one of the elected delegates sent the following communication to the vestry:
To the Vestry of the Jewish Congrega- tion:
Gentlemen: I feel myself greatly obliged
by the assistance I received from you and the members of your Congregation at the late election. If the enclosed can serve the poor, or be of any use in any respect to the Congregation, I request their ac- ceptance of it, to be applied in any such manner as they shall think proper. I shall be glad of any future opportunity of ren- dering any service to the Congregation. Your obliged and humble servant.
CHRISTOPHER ENIGHT.
The following reply, re-enclosing the or- der for 50 guineas, was sent to Mr Knight: Mr C. Knight-
Sir: Your favor of the 26th ultimo, with the enclosed acceptance for fifty guineas. has been laid before our body, for which token of esteem we are extremely obliged to you, but when we consider the motive that has induced you to offer it, consist- ent with the tenor of your letter, we can- not on any consideration think of ac- cepting it, as it may be suggested at some future period that the members of our community were to be bought. We have, therefore, thought necessary to re- turn it, assuring you, we shall entertain a deep sensibility of your good intentions. We remain your obedient servants,
Jacob Cohen.
President of the Congregation K. K. B E.
During the period we are now discuss- ing the Jews of South Carolina do not ap- pear to have taken any very prominent part in public life. There are only a few references to Jews who occupied public offices. Solomon Cohen was postmaster for Georgetown in 174, and Abraham Co- hen filled the same position in 1797. Eleazer Elizer was postmaster in Green- ville in 1794 and Abraham Selxas was keeper of the Work House in Charleston in 1.9%. and for severui years subsequently. · Nor do we And many Jews in the profes- sions at this period. In 1795 I find men-
1 2
tion of a Dr Sarzedas. I am not certain whether he was a physician, but I know that he kept a drug store. After 1800, how- ever, the Jews of Charleston played a conspicuous part in Art, in Science and in Literature, to all of which they made emi- nent contributions. What they did in these spheres I shall relate elsewhere. They at- tained considerable prominence, commer- cially, however, principally, as I have al- ready stated, in the "Vendue" business. One of these "Vendue masters " has left us an advertisement which gives us a good insight into the miscellaneous na- ture of a brokerage business of those days. It is to be found in the South Carolina State Gazette for September 6. 1794. I reproduce it for its unique char- acter. I have not met with anything like it In the Gazettes:
ADVERTISEMENT.
ABRAHAM SEIXAS,
All so gracious.
Once again does offer His service pure
For to secure
Money in the coffer.
He has for sale Some negroes, male, Will suit full well grooms, He has likewise Some of their wives Can make clean, dirty rooms.
For planting, too, He has a few To sell, all for the cash, Of various price, To work the rice Or bring them to the lash.
The young ones true, If that will do. May some be had of him To learn your trade They may be made, Or bring them to your trim.
:3
The boatmen great. Will vou elate They are so brisk and free; What e'er you say, They will obey, If you buy them of me.
He also can Suit any man With land all o'er the State; A bargain, sure, They may procure If they dont stay too late.
For papers he Will sure agree, Bond, note or publick debt; To sell the same If with good name And buyer can be met.
To such of those As will dispose He begs of them to tell;
By note or phiz, What e'er it is That they have got to sell.
He surely will Try all his skill To sell, for more or less. The articles Of beaux and belles, That they to him address.
The following is a fairly complete direc- tory of the Jews of Charleston from 1783 to ISix). I omit all names that we have met heretofore. It must be supplemented, however, by my list of members of K. K. Beth Elohim for 1800, which I have already printed.
Aaron, Solomon, Jr. Aarons. Jacob. Abendanone, Joseph. Abrahams, Abraham. Abrahams, Isaac.
Abrahams, Jacob. Abrams, Moise. Alexander, Abraham, Jr. Azuby, Rev Abraham. Barret, Solomon.
Benedix, Isaac. Benzabin, Joseph. Bush, David Canter, David. Canter. Emanuel. Canter, Joshua. Cantor, Jacob. Cantor, Jacsh, Jr. Cohen. Jacob A. Cohen, Levi. Cohen, Mordicai. Cohen, Solomon. Cohen, Solomon I.
Da Costa, Aaron. De La Motta, Isaac (or Motta.) De Leon, Jacob. De Lieben, Israel. Depass, Ralph.
Derkheim, Myer. Elizer, Eleazer.
Gomes, Ellas.
Harby, Isaac.
Harby, Solomon. Harris, Andrew. Harris, Hyam.
Hart. Abraham Levy. Hart, Alexander Moses.
Hart. Bernard.
Hart, Daniel.
Hart, Ephraim.
Hart, Hart Moses. Hart, Naphtali. Hart, Nathan. Hart, Simon.
Hart, Simon M. Hyams, Samuel. Hyams, Solomon. Isaacks. Moses.
Isaacs, Abraham. Jacobs, Abraham. Jacobs, Samuel. Jonas, Joshua. Joseph, Solomon Moses. Lazarus, Aaron. Levi, Abraham ..
Levi, Solomon. Levy, Hyam. Levy, Hyam E. Levy, Lyon. Levy, Mordecai. Levy, Moses.
Levy, Moses C. Levy, Reuben.
Levy, Solomon, Jr. Lopez, Aaron. (From Newport.)
Lopez, David.
Marks, Humphry.
Milhado, Benjamin. (From Jamaica.) Moise, Abraham. (From Cape Francois.)
Moise, Cherry.
Moise, Hyam. (From Port au Prince.) Moses, Isaac.
Moses, Lyon.
Moses, Philip. (From St Eustatius.)
Myers, Abraham.
Myers, Israel. . Moses, Joseph, Jr.
Nathan, Abraham.
Nathan, Solomon.
Nathans, Davii.
Noah, Manuel. Pimentel, Aaron.
Philips, Benjamin.
Philips, David. (From Jamaica.)
Polock, Solomon. (From Newport.)
Sarzedas, Moses.
Seixas, Abraliam Mendes.
Simons, Montague. Solomons, Francis.
Suares, David. (From Curacoa.)
Tobias, Isaac. Woolf or Wolfe, Solomon. -
With this I bring my story to an end. I hope that I may be deemed to have made a not unimportant contribution to the his- tory of this State and to the story of the Jews in America.
HUHNER VS ELZAS.
THE NEW YORKER OBJECTS To DE ELZANE CRITICISMN,
some Correspondence that Does not Affect the Questionx at Faulty Envelopzedias Cited fu Defence of an Error-stands by his Story of Salvador-I, not Familiar with Tory Gerardx of this state- Thinka Lashington's Company was Composed of Jews-Continental of- Hours from other States Credited to South Carolina-thinks the ker of IN11 Created First Free Schon! Commissioner, in Charleston.
[Reprinted from The News and Courier.]
To the Editor of The Sunday News: There recently aprcared in your columns. (December It. Imc) a review of my article on Charleston in the Jewish Enerelope- dia. The reverend gentioman who wrote that review is a springer to me, one whom I have never met nor corresponded with, though I became aware of his existence some eight months ago. when I learned that, withour my knowledge, he had ob- tained some unna wished manuscripts of mine relating to the war history of the Jews in South Canina from a person who neither had my authority or consent to make any such uss of my work.
The review is so grossiy unfair ind un- just as to make it absolutely unworthy of consideration and I had determined to ignore it altogether, but for the fact that the reverend gentleman has seen it to have his attack reprinted, sending it broadeast not only to the press, but to private individuais as well.
(Here follows correspondence irrelevant to the points at issue.)
At the outset * *
the review attempts to create an impression that my own work Is unduly emphasized in the bibliography given in the Encyclopedia. A glance at in article will prove the absolute inius- rice de this. The bobliss pay meations mo of the works from which may material was drawn and pear the end of the list I w i justified in including my own essay, simply bolduse it collects braille all the authorities on the susjeec which I
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.