measure, if not entirely, the result of the assassination of Alexander
II; it is a mere truism to say that this event was the most unfortunate
in its effects on well-ordered progress that has occurred in this
Empire; but, so far as the Israelites are concerned, the facts at
the bottom of this charge against them can be accounted for, without
imputing anything to the race at large, by the mass of bitterness
stored up during ages of oppression, not only in Russia, but elsewhere.
The matter complained of must certainly be considered as exceptional,
for it cannot hide the greater fact that the Jews have always shown
themselves especially grateful to such rulers as have mitigated their
condition or even shown a kindly regard for them.
I was myself, as minister at Berlin, cognizant of innumerable
evidences of gratitude and love shown by the entire Jewish population
toward the Crown Prince, afterwards the Emperor Frederick III, who,
when Jew-baiting was in fashion, and patronized by many persons in
high positions, set himself quietly but firmly against it. And this
reminiscence leads me to another in regard to the oft-repeated charge
that the Israelite is incapable of patriotism, is a mere beast of prey,
and makes common cause with those of his race engaged in sucking out
the substance of the nation where he happens to be. It was my good
fortune to know personally several Israelites at Berlin, who as members
of the Imperial Parliament showed their patriotism by casting away all
hopes of political advancement and resisting certain financial claims
in which some of their co-religionists, as well as some leading and
very influential Christians, were deeply engaged. There is nothing
nobler in recent parliamentary history than the career of such
Israelites as Lasker and Bamberger during that period, and at this
moment no sane man in Germany hesitates to ascribe to the Israelite
Simson all the higher qualities required in his great office, that of
chief justice in the highest court of the German Empire.
The same broad and humane characteristics have been shown among the
vast majority of Israelites eminent in science, philosophy, literature
and the arts. Long before the Israelite Spinoza wrought his own ideal
life into the history of philosophy, this was noted, and it has
continued to be noted in Russia. During my former residence here there
were two eminent representatives of the proscribed race in the highest
scientific circles, and they were especially patriotic and broad
in their sympathies; and to-day the greatest of Russian sculptors,
Antokolski, an Israelite, has thrown into his work not only more
genius, but also more of profound patriotic Russian feeling, than has
any other sculptor of this period. He has revived more evidently than
has any other sculptor the devotion of Russians to their greatest men
in times past, and whenever the project of erecting at St. Petersburg
a worthy monument to the late Emperor shall be carried out, there is
no competent judge who will not acknowledge that he is the man in all
Russia to embody in marble or bronze the gratitude of the nation. This
is no mere personal opinion of my own, for when recently a critic based
an article against Antokolski's works, evidently upon grounds of race
antipathy, a brilliant young author, of one of the oldest and most
thoroughly Russian families in the Empire, Prince Sergius Wolkonsky,
wrote a most cogent refutation of the attack. It is also charged that
in Russia, and, indeed, throughout Europe, an undue proportion of Jews
have been prominent in movements generally known as "socialistic," and
such men as Ferdinand Lasalle and Karl Marx are referred to.
When this statement has been made in my hearing I have met it by the
counter statement of a fact that seems to me to result from the freedom
allowed in the United States, namely, the fact that at a meeting of the
American Social Science Association in 1891, in which a discussion took
place involving the very basis of the existing social system, and in
which the leading representatives of both sides in the United States
were most fully represented, the argument which was generally agreed to
be the most effective against the revolutionary and anti-social forces
was made by a young Israelite, Prof. Seligman, of Columbia University,
in the city of New York. Here, again, results are mistaken for causes;
the attitude complained of in the Israelites is clearly the result of
the oppression of their race.
But there is one charge which it is perhaps my duty to say that
I have never heard made against Israelites even by Russians most
opposed to them--the charge that they are to be found in undue or
even in any considerable proportion among inebriates or criminals.
The simplest reason for this exception in their favor is found in the
official statistics which show that in the Governments where they
are most numerous diseases and crimes resulting from the consumption
of alcoholic drinks are least numerous, and that where the number of
Israelites is greatest the consumption of spirits is least. It is
also well known, as a matter of general observation, that the Russian
Israelites are, as a rule, sober, and that crimes among them are
comparatively infrequent.
Yet, if in any country we might expect alcoholism to be greatly
developed among them it would be in this Empire, where their misery is
so great and the temptation to drown it in intoxicating beverages so
constant; and if we might expect crime to be developed largely among
them it would be in this Empire, where, crowded together as they are,
the struggle for existence is so bitter. Their survival under it can
only be accounted for by their superior thrift and sobriety.
It would be a mistake to suppose that religious hatred or even deeply
religious feeling is a main factor in this question. The average
Russian believes that all outside the orthodox Greek Church are lost;
but he does not hate them on that account, and though there has been
of late years, during the present reaction, an increase of pressure
upon various Christian organizations outside the established church,
this has been undeniably from political rather than religious reasons;
it has been part of the "Russifying process," which is at present the
temporary fashion. The rule in Russia has always been toleration,
though limited by an arrangement which seems to a stranger very
peculiar. In St. Petersburg, for example, there are churches for nearly
all the recognized forms of Christian belief, as well as synagogues for
Hebrews, and at least one Mohammedan mosque; but the only proselytism
allowed is that between themselves and from them to the established
church; in other words, the Greek church may proselyte from any of
them, and, within certain limits, each one may proselyte from its
orthodox neighbors, but none of them can make converts from the Greek
Church.
This regulation seems rather, the result, on the whole, of organized
indifference than of zeal, its main purpose being undoubtedly to keep
down any troublesome religious fervor. The great body of the Russian
peasantry, when left to themselves, seem to be remarkably free from
any spirit of fanatical hostility toward religious systems differing
from their own, and even from the desire to make proselytes. Mr.
Mackenzie Wallace, in his admirable book, after showing that the
orthodox Russian and the Mahommedan Tartar live in various communities
in perfect peace with each other, details a conversation with a Russian
peasant, in which the latter told him that just as God gave the Tartar
a darker skin, so he gave him a different religion; and this feeling of
indifference, when the peasants are not excited by zealots on one side
or the other, seems to prevail toward the Roman Catholics in Poland
and the Protestants in the Baltic provinces and Finland. While some
priests have undoubtedly done much to create a more zealous feeling,
it was especially noted during the fierce persecution of the Jews
early in the present reign that in several cases the orthodox village
priests not only gave shelter to Israelites seeking to escape harm, but
exerted themselves to put an end to the persecutions. So, too, during
the past few days the papers have contained a statement that a priest
very widely known and highly esteemed, to whom miraculous powers are
quite generally attributed, Father John, of Cronstadt, has sent some of
the charity money, of which he is almoner, to certain Jewish orphanages
under the control of Israelites.
The whole present condition of things is rather the outcome of a great
complicated mass of causes, involving racial antipathies, remembrances
of financial servitude, vague inherited prejudices, with myths and
legends like those of the Middle Ages.
But, whatever may be the origin of the feeling toward the Israelites
the practical fact remains that the present policy regarding them is
driving them out of the country in great masses. The German papers
speak of large numbers as seeking the United States and the Argentine
Republic--but especially the former--through the northern ports of that
Empire, and, as I write, the Russian papers state that eight steamers
loaded with them are just about leaving Libau for America.
It is, of course, said in regard to these emigrants that they have not
been ordered out of the country, that they can stay in Russia if they
like, and that Russia has simply exercised her right to manage her own
internal affairs in her own way; but it is none the less true that the
increasing severity in the enforcement of the regulations regarding the
Israelites is the main, if not the only, cause of this exodus. In order
that this question may be understood in its relations to the present
condition of political opinion in the Empire, there is need to make
some additional statement.
There has never been a time, probably, when such a feeling of isolation
from the rest of the world, and aversion to foreign influence of
every sort, have prevailed in Russia as at present; it is shared by
the great majority from the highest to the lowest, and it is echoed
in the press. Russia has been, during the last ten years, in a great
reactionary period, which now seems to be culminating in the attempted
"Russification" of the Empire, involving such measures as increasing
pressure upon Poland, increasing interference with the Baltic provinces
and the German colonies, in the talk of constitutional changes in
Finland, in the substitution of Russian for German names of various
western towns, in the steadily increasing provisions for strengthening
the orthodox Russian Church against all other religious organizations,
in the outcry made by various papers in favor of such proposals as that
for transferring the university at Dorpat into the Muscovite regions of
the interior, for changing the name of St. Petersburg, and for every
sort of Russifying process which the most imaginative can devise.
In this present reaction, connected as it is with bitter disappointment
over the defeat of Russian aspirations in the Berlin treaty and since,
reforms which were formerly universally considered honorable and
desirable for Russia are now regarded with aversion; the controlling
feeling is for "Russification."
Peter the Great is now very largely regarded by Russians as having
taken a wrong road, and, while monuments are erected to Alexander
II, his services as emancipator of the serfs are rarely alluded to,
and the day formerly observed in remembrance of the emancipation has
ceased to be publicly noticed. This reaction shows itself in general
literature, in paintings, in sculpture, in architecture, in everything.
Any discussion regarding a change in the present condition of things is
met by the reply that strangers do not understand Russian questions,
and that these questions are complicated historically, politically,
economically and socially to such a degree that none but those having
personal experience can understand them. If the matter is still further
pressed and the good effects of a different policy in the United
States, Great Britain, and elsewhere are referred to, it is answered
that in those countries a totally different state of things exists, and
that no arguments can be made from them to Russia. Any continuance of
the discussion is generally met by the statement that Russian questions
are largely misrepresented by the press of western Europe; that there
is a systematic propaganda against Russia in England, Germany, Austria,
and Italy; that England does or allows worse things in her Irish
evictions and in her opium traffic, and the United States in lynch law
proceedings and treatment of the Chinese, than any done or allowed
in Russia; that, in short, Russia is competent to take charge of her
own internal policy, and that other powers will do well to mind their
own business. This feeling is closely akin to that which was shown
sometimes in the United States before the civil war toward foreign
comments upon our own "peculiar institution," when representations by
such philanthropists as the Duchess of Sutherland, George Thompson, M.
P., and others were indignantly repelled.
This condition of opinion and the actions resulting from it are so
extreme that it naturally occurs to one who has observed Russian
history that a reaction cannot be long deferred.
The progress of Russia thus far has been mainly by a series of
reactions. These have sometimes come with surprising suddenness. In
view of that which took place when the transition was made from the
policy of restriction followed by the Emperor Nicholas to the broadly
liberal policy adopted by Alexander II, of which, being connected with
this legation at that time, I was a witness, a reaction at present
seems by no means impossible or even improbable. It is by no means
necessary that a change of reign should take place. A transition
might be occasioned as others have been, by the rise of some strong
personality bringing to bear upon the dominant opinion the undoubted
fact that the present system of repression toward the Israelite is from
every point of view a failure, and that it is doing incalculable harm
to Russia.
This dispatch ought not, perhaps, to close without an apology for its
length; the subject is one of great importance, and it has seemed to
me a duty to furnish the Department, in answer to the Secretary's
question, with a full report regarding the present stage in the
evolution of the matter concerned as my opportunities have enabled me
to make.
I am, etc., ANDREW D. WHITE.
* * * * *
NOTE:--The attitude of our Government with regard to the general
question here involved has repeatedly been manifested through our State
Department. On the occasion of the Mohammedan outrages against the
Jews in 1840, and under date of August 19th of that year, Secretary of
State John Forsyth addressed to our Minister to Turkey, David Porter, a
dispatch as follows:
Sir: In common with the people of the United States, the President
has learned with profound feelings of surprise and pain, the
atrocious cruelties which have been practised upon the Jews of
Damascus and Rhodes in consequence of charges, extravagant and
strikingly similar to those, which in less enlightened ages,
were made pretexts for the persecution and spoliation of these
unfortunate people. As the scenes of these barbarities are in the
Mohammedan dominions, and as such inhuman practises are not of
infrequent occurrence in the East, the President has directed me
to instruct you to do everything in your power with the Government
of his Imperial Highness, the Sultan, to whom you are accredited,
consistent with discretion and your diplomatic character, to
prevent or mitigate these horrors, the bare recital of which has
caused a shudder throughout the civilized world, and in an especial
manner to direct your philanthropic efforts against the employment
of torture in order to compel the confession of imputed guilt.
The President is of opinion that from no one can such generous
endeavors proceed with so much propriety and effect as from the
Representative of a friendly power whose institutions, political
and civil, place upon the same footing the worshipers of God, of
every faith and form, acknowledging no distinction between the
Mohammedan, the Jew and the Christian. Should you in carrying
out these instructions find it necessary or proper to address
yourself to any of the Turkish authorities, you will refer to this
distinctive characteristic of our government, as investing with a
peculiar propriety and right the interposition of your good offices
in behalf of an oppressed and persecuted race among whose kindred
are found some of the most worthy and patriotic of our citizens.
In communicating to you the wishes of the President I do not think
it advisable to give you more explicit and minute instructions,
but earnestly commend to your zeal and discretion a subject which
appeals so strongly to the universal sentiments of justice and
humanity.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. FORSYTH.
* * * * *
In 1870, when the persecution of the Roumanian Jews, which had been
started in 1868, was growing from bad to worse, our government, at
the instance of the Order of B'nai B'rith, (as noted on page 428),
established a diplomatic agency at Bucharest. On this occasion
President Grant furnished Consul-General Peixotto with a special
authorization, as follows:
EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C., December 8th, 1870.
The bearer of this letter, Mr. Benjamin F. Peixotto, who has
accepted the important, though unremunerative, position of United
States Consul to Roumania, is commended to the good offices of all
representatives of this Government abroad.
Mr. Peixotto has undertaken the duties of his present office more
as a missionary work for the benefit of the people he represents
than for any benefit to accrue to himself--a work in which all
citizens will wish him the greatest success. The United States,
knowing no distinction of her own citizens on account of religion
or nativity, naturally believes in a civilization, the world over,
which will secure the same universal views.
U. S. GRANT.
* * * * *
President Grant's interest in the subject was furthermore evinced
when, in 1871, at the earnest request of Hon. Simon Wolf, he called a
special Cabinet meeting to consider the reported expulsion of the Jews
of Russian Bessarabia. This meeting resulted in the sending of a cable
dispatch to Minister Andrew G. Curtin at St. Petersburg, protesting
against the ukase of banishment. The protest was heeded by the Czar and
the ukase was rescinded.
As a further indication of the position taken by our Government in
regard to the matter, we quote the following dispatch from Secretary of
State Hamilton Fish to Consul General Peixotto:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, D. C., April 10, 1872.
SIR:--Among the large number of Israelites in this country there
are probably few whose sympathies have not been intensely excited
by the recent intelligence of the grievous persecutions of their
co-religionists in Roumania. This feeling has naturally been
augmented by the contrast presented by the position of members of
that persuasion here, who are equals with all others before the
law, which sternly forbids any oppression on account of religion.
Indeed, it may be said that the people of this country universally
abhor persecution anywhere for that cause, and deprecate the trials
of which, according to your dispatches, the Israelites of Roumania
have been victims.
This Government heartily sympathizes with the popular instinct upon
the subject, and while it has no disposition or intention to give
offence by interfering in the internal affairs of Roumania, it is
deemed to be due to humanity to remonstrate against any license or
impunity which may have attended the outrages in that country.
You are consequently authorized to address a note to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs of the Principality in which you will embody the
views herein expressed, and you will also do anything which you
can do discreetly, with a reasonable prospect of success, toward
preventing a recurrence or continuance of the persecutions adverted
to.
I am, Sir, etc., etc.,
HAMILTON FISH.
* * * * *
As a plain and unmistakable summary of the attitude of the American
people with regard to the brutalities deliberately perpetrated by
Russia, we close these citations with that of the Resolution of
Congress, introduced by Representative Amos J. Cummings of New York,
December 19th, 1890, and adopted unanimously by the House.
Resolved, etc.: "That the members of the House of Representatives
of the United States have heard with profound sorrow and feelings
akin to horror the reports of the persecutions of the Jews in
Russia, reflecting the barbarism of past ages, disgracing humanity
and impeding the progress of civilization; that our sorrow is
intensified by the fact that such occurrences should happen in a
country which has been, and is now, the firm friend of the United
States, and in a nation that clothed itself with glory, not long
since, by the emancipation of its serfs and by its defence of
helpless Christians from the oppression of the Turks; that a copy
of this resolution be forwarded to the Secretary of State with a
request that he send it to the American Minister at St. Petersburg
and that said Minister be directed to present the same to His
Imperial Majesty Alexander III, Czar of all the Russias."
THE RUSSIAN JEWISH REFUGEES IN AMERICA.
CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE GENERAL SUBJECT OF IMMIGRATION IN ITS
HISTORICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS.
(Note.--In the preparation of the following article the editor has
utilized the contents of a paper read by him before the Board of
Presidents of the National Societies of Philadelphia, as a member
of that body, December 12th, 1891).
A review of the subject of American Jewish citizenship necessarily
involves a consideration of the recent accretions to the Jewish
population in this country through the immigration of those of the
expatriated Russian Jews who have found and are yet finding their way
to our shores. The influx and settlement here of this practically new
element of the population has attracted a large measure of public
attention, notwithstanding the fact that it comprises an average of not
over 8 per cent. of the total immigration. This has been due not only
to the extraordinary causes of the influx, but also to the fact that
the settlement of a large number of the newcomers in the seabord cities
has caused some disturbances in the labor market at those points.
The influence of this movement on the future development of American
Judaism is beyond our immediate purview, and its present bearing on the
Jewish community need be considered but incidentally. In view, however,
of the repeated changes in our immigration laws since 1882, when the
immigration of the Russian Jews began to reach its present marked
proportions by reason of their expulsion from their homes, and of the
agitation for such further legislation as will result in a practically
complete disbarment of these and other unfortunate victims of European
oppression, we may here properly proceed to a brief consideration of
the social, political and economic aspects of the question, both as
regards the Russian Jewish immigrants and immigration in general.
The earliest immigration movement of which a record has come down
to our day is that which carried the Hebrew Abram from "Ur of the
Chaldees" westward to the plains of Canaan. It carried with it the
latent energy whose force has been the most potent in the world's
affairs; which has become the moving spirit of the Caucasian race, and
which afforded the vehicle of development for Judaism, Christianity
and Islam. The far-reaching consequences of that first of recorded
immigrations need not be dwelt upon; it forms the prologue to the
history of civilization, a history whose epilogue is yet to be enacted,
and whose processes are not only still a living reality in the present,
but are proceeding towards an infinitely greater compass in the future.