Jonathan D. Sarna
Jacksonian Jew, The Two Worlds of Mordecai Noah
NYC: Holmes & Meier, 1981
[ 61 ]
Chapter IV
__________
An Asylum for the Jews
Throughout modern history, proposed Jewish colonies have aroused both excitement and rage. Proponents -- Jews and Christians alike -- have advocated self-governing Jewish communities as solutions to the "Jewish problem," and as harbingers of the millennium. Opponents have viewed the same colonies as impractical dreams and as barriers to emancipation and integration. Mordecai Noah strove, characteristically, to reconcile these positions. Visions of a meliorated Jewish condition and dreams of a coming millennium did not blind him to the patriotic duty owed his native land. His was rather a grand effort to save the world, promote America, develop New York State, improve the Jewish condition, and aggrandize himself -- at one and the same time. Noah saw no contradiction between efforts to promote simultaneously both Jewish self-government and subservience to American law. He never understood why Ararat, like all colonies torn between the Scylla of separatism and the Charybdis of assimilation, was doomed to fail. 1
From early on, advocates of Jewish colonization had directed their attention toward America. The leaders of London's Bevis Marks synagogue made an unsuccessful effort to set up a Jewish frontier colony as far back as 1734. In 1750, an impoverished Scottish nobleman named Alexander Cuming had a more ambitious plan: he proposed settling three hundred thousand Jewish families in "the Cherokee Mountains." Unsurprisingly, these eighteenth century schemes, as well as innumerable others, never got beyond the talking stage. Only in the nineteenth century did colonization efforts receive new impetus. In 1807, the first Jewish agricultural colonies in southern Russia were formed. A decade later, Lewis Way, the distinguished English churchman, also actively involved himself in efforts to colonize Jews in Russia. Outside the Jewish community, Catholics, Irish, Germans, and various utopians planned colonies for themselves in North America. At the same time, the American Colonization Society began to advocate colonies for
62 Jacksonian Jew
American Negroes in Africa. In short, all over the western world, reformers came to view colonies -- especially, but not exclusively, American frontier colonies -- as the best solution to the problems posed by minority, deviant, and oppressed groups. Rather than attempting to create an equitable pluralistic state, they proposed to create insulated communities where each individual group could flourish on its own. Many Jews found the idea alluring. 2
In America, a myriad of proposals for Jewish colonies emerged in the buoyant, self-confident years which followed the end of the War of 1812. The country's underdeveloped areas seemed like the ideal place for Jews to settle. Moses E. Levy tried to induce Jews to migrate to Florida, where he owned vast tracts of land. Samuel Myers of Norfolk, Virginia, privately advocated a broader immigration-colonization plan, one which involved the frontier areas west of the Mississippi. William D. Robinson, a Christian, later publicly advocated a very similar project in his Memoir Addressed to Persons of the Jewish Religion in Europe on the Subject of Emigration (1819). Even The American Society for Meliorating the Condition of the Jews put forward a colonization scheme. Unlike other planners, however, the missionaries designated their colony primarily for converts. 3
Mordecai Noah's proposal was in many respects similar to these other colonization efforts. He, too, advocated Jewish immigration from Europe and settlement in a religiously homogeneous agricultural colony. He too sought to send Jews to underdeveloped areas of the country. But he went beyond the other plans -- he was familiar with them all -- and undertook practical steps to bring his program to fruition. 4
On January 16, 1820, Noah laid before the New York legislature a petition requesting that it survey, value, and sell him Grand Island in the Niagara River to serve as a colony for the Jews of the world The petition seemed extraordinary: why not merely ask to buy the land? He certainly did not need legislative approval to turn it into a colony. But Noah sought maximum publicity for his plan, and as a journalist, he knew that only the extraordinary won attention. He may also have remembered the fanfare generated by a similarly grandiose project, the Grand Canal plan, filed a few years before by De Witt Clinton. Like Clinton, he may have hoped that his project's favorable publicity would redound to his own political advantage. Unlike Clinton, he did not have to worry about the legislature's fiscal conservatism. His plan required no state money at all. Still, he clearly hoped, although he was not overly sanguine, that the state would present Grand Island to him free of charge. 5
The legislature initially reacted with caution. Various unfriendly members of the select committee which handled the bill opposed offering "preferences to any sect," fearing that "Dutch, Swiss, French &c. might wish similar assistance." Others warned that Christian-Jewish separation would be harmful. But Michael Ulshoeffer, chairman of the committee, along with several of his colleagues, expressed sympathy for the persecuted Jews in Europe -- he had anti-Jewish riots in mind -- and suggested a bill that simply transferred Grand Island to Noah in a normal way. The colonizer could then
An Asylum for the Jews 63
do with the island as he wished. As Ulshoeffer saw it, the sale of Grand Island was "a desirable object." The state had purchased the 17,381-acre island in 1815 from the Indians, and had watched idly while it filled up with squatters. In 1819, at considerable expense, the eight-mile-long island had been cleared. The squatters, however, threatened to return, and new battles loomed. Noah's proposal promised to solve the problem once and for all. Unfortunately, Ulshoeffer's "desirable object" soon faced an insurmountable barrier. Britain claimed ownership of Grand Island and demanded its return. The resolution of this diplomatic wrangle was left to a boundary commission; meanwhile, Noah's petition languished and died. 6
Noah did not give up on his efforts to find what he termed a "New Jerusalem" for his brethren. Palestine, he thought, was not the answer, since many Jews "would not inhabit [it] if they recovered it tomorrow." Buoyed by the support of Christians who, a contemporary Jew (Benjamin Hart) observed, "wish[ed] the plan well," and called Noah "the Messiah of the Jews," Noah set out to find an American home for his coreligionists. He searched for a place where Jews could both own property in their own name, and enjoy the rights and privileges which "they [did] not possess in any other part of the globe." By December, Noah had decided that Newport, Rhode Island, was "the most eligible spot for Jewish emigrants." In an article in the National Advocate (December 1, 1820), he extolled its "harbor inferior to none in the Union," its "remarkably healthy" climate, and its moderate cost of living. He also reminded Jewish readers that the city had served as "the residence of respectable Jewish merchants" in colonial days, and that it still contained "a very spacious place of worship." 7
Noah had apparently taken to heart the words of critics who attacked his plan claiming that "the Jews are not cultivators." In Newport, agricultural activities were unnecessary -- indeed, impossible; Jews would have to live by commerce and industry. Noah had also apparently taken to heart the criticism of, among others, Isaac Harby (later famous for his effort, in 1824, to modify Jewish religious practice in Charleston's Beth Elohim synagogue) who felt that Jews should assimilate into the mainstream. But, while Noah agreed that Jews should "spread themselves over the Union and be amalgamated with other citizens," he still insisted that Jews maintain their separate identity as a people. He stressed that his was an effort to promote both identity and integration, and he correctly pointed out that other American groups maintained the identical set of goals:
I certainly do admit that Jews should live among Christians and by thus mingling together endeavour to allay prejudices and become familiar with each others virtues; but even in extensive communities they form distinct associations -- In fact all other religions do the same, and this establishment was only intended as a rallying point. 8
Noah thought that Newport, even more than Grand Island, could further his dual objectives. Since it was a city, Jews could both mingle with non-Jews and
64 Jacksonian Jew
remain distinct at the same time. But Newport offered potential immigrants none of Grand Island's major attractions. The city showed no signs of recovering from the devastating effects of the Revolutionary War, which had destroyed its port, and it therefore harbored only limited prospects for aspiring businessmen. Furthermore, the European Jews most interested in America were precisely those who sought agricultural careers. Struggling for emancipation, they fervently wished to disprove the canard that Jews were "unproductive" and unwilling to work with their hands. By becoming, as Noah suggested, American merchants and traders, they would be reinforcing the very stereotype which they so desperately wanted to refute. The original choice of Grand Island, which was poised at the mouth of the soon-to-be completed Erie Canal, was a far better place for a colony. It offered both trade and agricultural possibilities, and promised a good return on investment. With Newport, Noah had no hope of success at all. Wisely, he did not pursue the plan. 9
In order personally to stimulate Jewish immigration, Noah again sought a lucrative, secure, and prestigious consular post. He asked specifically for a post at Vienna; he offered, however, to accept any position which might help him to further his colonization project. He aimed to help his fellow Jews and to help himself at the same time. But his application fell on deaf ears, probably because his past diplomatic experience had not been forgotten. Stymied on all sides, he had no choice but to abandon his project, at least until a more favorable opportunity arose. Meanwhile, his plan piqued the interest of a group of young Jews in Germany. 10
The first, somewhat confused reports of Noah's colonization ideas appeared in the Koblenzer Anzeiger of July 2, 1819. After Noah petitioned the state legislature in 1820, other German newspapers picked up the story. In the wake of the anti-Jewish hep hep riots, proposals for Jewish colonies abroad received much public attention. At least some Jews evinced interest. The Verein fur Cultur und Wissenschaft der Juden, an association of young Jews in Germany dedicated to Jewish cultural development, discussed Noah's Ararat plan on April 30, 1820. Gerson Adersbach, a member of the society, boldly proposed that contact be made with the "educated, well reputed and patriotic man." But discussion was deferred The subject of emigration from Germany proved too controversial for the fledgling and ardently patriotic organization. In late 1821, Noah's project was again discussed, this time by Verein member Eliezer Kirschbaum, who considered the planned colony a harbinger of the messianic era. Fearful that Noah might abandon his project for lack of European support, the Verein members, after some debate, agreed to elect him an extraordinary member of their organization. Delighted by their action, Noah, in 1822, printed his letter of appointment in the press. Neither he nor his readers knew that idealistic young Jews in their twenties had authored the letter. These men, like Noah, felt dissatisfied with Jewish conditions. Some even had visions of creating a brighter Jewish future. Despite what Noah thought, however, the Verein members were not, in any sense, leaders of
An Asylum for the Jews 65
German Jewry. Nor did the Verein letter represent the kind of European Jewish mandate which Noah, in his ignorance, imagined. 11
In spite of Verein recognition, and in spite of the boundary commission's 1822 award of Grand Island to New York State, Noah devoted almost no further effort to his project for the next two years. Presumably, his earlier experience had chastened him. Besides, local affairs occupied all of his energies. What finally roused him to action was the legislature's decision, in April 1824, to survey and sell Grand Island. Eager to purchase it, but short of means, Noah set out to find financial backing. General Peter B. Porter, an investor in nearby Black Rock, a hero of the War of 1812, and later Secretary of War, refused to finance the undertaking by providing the ten thousand dollars Noah needed -- despite Noah's assurance that the sale of lots on Grand Island would yield "a princely fortune." Other New Yorkers found the opportunity more to their interest. By the time the sale took place, in June 1825, some of "the most spirited and enterprising" investors in New York State found themselves competing with one another for the land. Samuel Leggett represented Noah in the bidding and purchased land directly on his behalf. Eleven other merchants and lawyers -- among them Jacob Barker, Levi Beardsley, James O'Morse, Alvin Stewart, John B. Yates, Archibald McIntyre, and Peter Smith -- speculated either for themselves or on behalf of a proposed private high school. In the end Leggett managed to obtain 2,555 choice acres on the eastern shore of the island for which he paid $16,985. The entire area brought in $76,230, considerably above the already somewhat inflated $50,000 value which Noah and Buffalo officials had earlier placed on the land. 12 On November 19, 1833, Noah wrote to New York State Comptroller Azariah Flagg "Will you have the goodness to inform me how many acres I purchased in Grand Island [?]" The answer, unfortunately, is not extant, but the question demonstrates that Noah did purchase some Grand Island land, frequently cited reports to the contrary notwithstanding. 13
Grand Island having been purchased, Noah now set about trying to induce "Jewish bankers or any wealthy and respectable persons of that denomination" to immigrate. Hearing that Churchill Caldon Cambreling, a wealthy one-time mayor of New York, was about to travel to Europe, Noah enlisted his aid in the effort "to induce the enterprising to embark in the project." But Noah knew that, in order to succeed, he needed far more publicity than that. Aided and advised by E. J. Roberts, his associate on the New York National Advocate, he commenced a vigorous promotion campaign for Grand Island. He also announced advanced plans for "suitable masonic, military and religious" dedication ceremonies. Shrewdly, he scheduled these exercises to take place just before the statewide observances celebrating the completion of the Erie Canal. He wanted as much attention as possible for his own project. 14
Noah set out for Buffalo on September 8, accompanied by Abraham Benjamin Seixas, a nephew of his teacher, Shearith Israel's Reverend Gershom Mendes Seixas. With the aid of Isaac S. Smith, a friend and local resident, they made final preparations for the ceremony, arranged for a
66 Jacksonian Jew
cornerstone, and issued invitations. Too late, they discovered that "a sufficient number of boats could not be procured in time to convey all those to the island who were desirous of witnessing the ceremony." Consequently, they shifted the ceremonies to St. Paul's Episcopal church, the only house of worship in Buffalo, and the only hall large enough for the expected crowd. The newly arrived rector of St. Paul's, Addison Searle, was acquainted with Noah and agreed to assist him. He likely knew that a precedent existed for lending his church to non-Protestants; four years earlier, St. Paul's had been lent for a worship service to Catholic families. 15
The third day of the Hebrew month of Tishre, September 15, dawned brilliantly. 16Cannoneers fired a rousing salute. The aged Seneca Chief, Red Jacket, came ashore. Crowds of spectators, most of them women, gathered to watch Noah's performance. The crowds hoped for good theater; they craved melodramas with exotic settings, impressive pageants, jubilant excitement, and holiday festivity. Noah, the accomplished dramatist, did not disappoint them. Resplendent in a Richard III costume, complete with a gold medallion neck chain -- all lent by the Park Theater -- Noah assumed his role as "Judge of Israel," and led a long procession from the masonic lodge to the church. There on the communion table lay the cornerstone, crowned with silver cups of wine, corn, and oil, and inscribed with the Hebrew words of the Sh'ma (Deut. 6:4): "Hear O Israel the Lord Our God the Lord is One." Soon, the music of the band's Judas Maccabeus and the organist's Jubilate gave way to the singing of "Before Jehovah's Awful Throne." The Rev. Searle conducted his "nonsectarian" morning service, an "ecumenical" service to dedicate a separatist Jewish colony. After a prayer, two prophetic lessons, the reading of a half-dozen Psalms (one of them in Hebrew), an ante-Communion Service and a benediction, Mordecai Noah rose to speak. 17
Noah's address before the assembled at St. Paul's Church endeavored to "unfold the principles, explain the views and detail the objects" which were contained in the magniloquent "Proclamation to the Jews" issued "By the Judge, "under the signature of "A. B. Seixas, Secretary Pro tem." earlier in the day.
The Proclamation had been directed to the widest possible audience. It announced the foundation of a city of refuge "to be called Ararat," proclaimed the re-establishment of the government of the Jewish Nation "under the auspices and protection of the constitution and laws of the United States of America," and declared Noah, "Judge of Israel."
Judge Noah then issued decrees: 10...
An Asylum for the Jews 67
... In a concluding substantive section of his Proclamation to the Jews, Noah, without obtaining their consent, appointed some of the most distinguished Jews in the world as his commissioners to further Jewish emigration. He authorized the Paris Consistory to investigate and report on Jewish conditions in the United States. He established "Roshhodesh [the new moon of the Hebrew month of] Adar, February 7th, 1826" as a special day of thanksgiving. Then he became humble. He pleaded with his fellow Jews to act properly, remember him in their prayers, and "keep the charge of the Holy God." 19
Noah's Proclamation to the Jews reads basically like a series of orders. The "Judge of Israel" explained very little. In his Ararat Address, he went further. He reviewed the state of world Jewry and sought to provide an answer to the question which still puzzles historians today: why Ararat?
Noah always stressed the humanitarian aspects of Ararat. He called Ararat "an asylum for the oppressed," and inscribed on its cornerstone the words, "A City of Refuge for the Jews." Actually, the Jewish situation in 1825 was less urgent than when Noah first proposed his colony in 1820. But if riots and persecutions had died down, the overall condition of the Jews in 1825 still cried out for improvement: "The oldest of nations, powerful in numbers and great in resources, remains isolated, without a home, a country or a
68 Jacksonian Jew
government." Jews, according to Noah, needed a "period of regeneration." In America, "under the influence of perfect freedom," he felt that Jews would study, acquire liberal principles, and qualify themselves to rule in the Land of the Patriarchs. 20
Noah envisaged Ararat as a temporary refuge where Jews would be modernized. Among his goals were such typical Enlightenment reforms as: abolition of polygamy, encouragement of agricultural and mechanical arts, and the spread of complete literacy in the native language of the country. Noah even considered calling together a seventy-member Sanhedrin, an obvious imitation of Napoleon's method for modernizing Jews. But by whatever means, he resolutely determined to spread "intelligence and education." Future generations, he promised, would be "progressively improved and enlightened." 21
Noah did not see Ararat as a surrogate Jerusalem. In 1820, he had felt that Jews would never voluntarily settle in the Holy Land, and that Grand Island would become the center of Jewry. At that time, he planned to name his colony "New Jerusalem," a name to which he still clung as late as 1824. But by 1825, perhaps influenced by new missionary interest in Palestine, he realized that no diaspora land could replace Jerusalem in the Jewish heart. His colony could at best serve as a temporary refuge, a happy if not promised land, an Ararat in the diaspora. The fact that the biblical Ararat was connected with the story of Noah only made this name more appropriate. 22
Although Noah conceded that Ararat would be a temporary resting place for the Jews, he assigned it an important role in bringing about the ultimate, millennial restoration for which vast numbers of people earnestly prayed. He began his proclamation by observing that the period when "the race of Jacob... are to be gathered from the four quarters of the globe" was approaching. Ararat, he promised, would collect together and "improve" Jews, and thus speed "that great and final restoration to their ancient heritage which the times so powerfully indicate." As Noah knew, many Christians believed that Jewish restoration was the harbinger of the millennium. The opening paragraph of his address indicates that he was well aware of the worldwide implications of his scheme. 23
Any benefits to the world from Ararat lay far in the future. America was more fortunate; as Noah saw it, the country would reap immediate benefits from the Jews. He promised that the wealthiest of his coreligionists (a group he had once identified as "enterprising merchants, silk and other manufacturers from France and Germany, mechanics wherever they are found, and agriculturalists from Poland and Ukraine") would come to America. Pending the millennium, America would have the use of their superior skills and ample capital. To make good on his promise, Noah in his writings wooed wealthy Jews and assured them of many opportunities. He reviewed Jewry's world situation, and sought to demonstrate that only in America would Jews escape oppression. He believed sincerely that Ararat would help wealthy Jews. But he believed just as sincerely that the project would have "the most important
An Asylum for the Jews 69
consequences to the country." As before, Noah wanted to prove that in aiding Jews he aided his country in ways that non-Jews couldn't match. Far from being a liability, he insisted that his Judaism served as an asset. 24
Noah applied the same argument in discussing the effects of his project on New York State. In 1820, he had assured the legislature that Jewish immigrants would "give an impetus to a brisk trade," set up "settlements of a commercial character," and establish on Grand Island "a very important frontier post." He even suggested that Jews might be "induced to purchase and hold all the state stock and eminently benefit our fiscal concerns." Now, five years later, he was in a position to make good on his promises and to prove himself a valuable citizen. Consequently, he extolled the virtues of his state to foreign Jews, and urged them to invest as much as they could: "To men of worth and industry it has every substantial attraction; the capitalist will be enabled to enjoy his resources with undoubted profit, and the mechanic cannot fail to reap the reward of enterprise in a great and growing republic; but to the industrious mechanic, manufacturer and agriculturalist it holds forth great and improving advantages." 25
In his public writings, Noah openly discussed the potential benefits of his project for his people, his nation, his state, and even for mankind's ultimate destiny. He said nothing at all, however, about the benefits which might accrue to himself. Grand Island, after all, was a prime location, one where most investors expected land values to rise. Privately, Noah once candidly admitted that he looked forward to "an immense profit." He also obviously enjoyed the accouterments in office -- the pomp, the ceremony, the title, and the speeches. He knew that if he succeeded, these and much more would be his for life. Yet, Noah did not undertake Ararat simply for reasons of fame and fortune; the sincerity of his interest in helping other Jews cannot be doubted. On the other hand, his was not a purely selfless endeavor either. Instead, both his own well-being and the well-being of others interested Noah. He was neither a complete altruist nor a complete egoist. 26
From the perspective of Mordecai Noah, Ararat seemed like an ideal plan: everybody gained, nobody lost. This outlook was quite typical of early nineteenth-century colonizers. Irish, German, and black colonization advocates never mentioned just the benefits which a colony held open to settlers. Always, they went on to extol the numerous advantages a colony might bring to all governments and peoples remotely connected with it. Like Noah, these colonizers gave scant public attention to any but the high-minded altruistic motivations behind their schemes. Yet, personal concerns, while not necessarily of prime importance, never lay far from their minds. 27
Despite these obvious similarities between Ararat and other colonization schemes, Noah adamantly insisted that he aimed "at higher objects than mere colonization." He aimed at melioration as well. In this sense, his colony resembled New Paltz colony, the Harrison, New York asylum set up for conversionist purposes by the American Society for Meliorating the Condition of the Jews. (Interestingly, one of Noah's letters of support came from
70 Jacksonian Jew
Erasmus H. Simon, an agent of that society who opposed the administrative policies of its colony. 28) Both colonies called themselves asylums; both aimed at potential Jewish immigrants; and both sought explicitly to "ameliorate the condition of the Jews" by properly educating children and by providing agricultural and mechanical training to adults. Theologically, Noah and the missionaries also had much in common. Both agreed that America was destined to play a special role in the Divine plan. Both agreed that the millennium was imminent, but in some ways dependent upon Jews. Both agreed that Jews and Christians should respect one another. And both agreed that it was up to Jews to take immediate appropriate action to ensure that they qualified for final restoration to the promised land. Of course, Noah and the missionaries still disagreed about religious fundamentals. Noah believed in ultimate Jewish regeneration, while the missionaries believed in ultimate Jewish conversion. Still, the parallels are instructive. Noah's thinking had obviously been shaped by the evangelical Protestantism of his day -- to such an extent, that he even shared many Christian views on the nature of world Jewry and how to improve it. Through Ararat, he sought to incorporate some of these Christian ideas into a framework which was staunchly Jewish. 29
Important as Evangelical Protestantism was in the early nineteenth century, it was not nearly so powerful an ideological influence on Noah as American idealism. As a patriotic citizen and an influential politician, Noah could only advocate projects which were totally in harmony with freedom, democracy, and tolerance. Ararat posed a problem: it was both sectarian and undemocratic. Noah never resolved this problem. He may not fully have understood its implications.
In his Ararat Address, Noah brushed aside the idea that Ararat and America could be in conflict: "Conforming therefore to the constitution and laws of the United States, there is no difficulty in organizing and concentrating the Jewish nation." He did not, however, elaborate as to how he would reconcile the seemingly opposite goals of maintaining a separate Jewish identity and integrating the Jews into American society as a whole. Instead, he strove to obtain legitimacy for his project. He tied it to America's three most enduring myths: the Wandering Pilgrims, the Noble Savages, and the Revolutionary Fathers. Just as "a few pilgrims, driven to our continent by European persecution, have laid the foundation of a splendid empire," so, he claimed, "a few Jews in this happy land admonished by the past, and animated by anticipations of the future, may increase rapidly and prosperously." As for the Indians, he labeled them "the lineal descendants of the Israelites," the ten lost tribes. Finally, he termed his Proclamation to the Jews, a "declaration of independence." The comparison between July 4, 1776, and September 15, 1825, was a difficult one, and wisely he did not elaborate on it. But his rhetorical reference to peace and prosperity, as well as his call for a "new society" could not have been lost on the attentive audience. 30
Unfortunately for Noah, neither his patriotic allusions nor his sweeping assertions could conceal the Ararat-America tensions inherent in his plan. If,
An Asylum for the Jews 71
as he claimed in his address, "in this free and happy country distinctions in religion are unknown," how could a separate Jewish colony be countenanced? How could a "government of the Jews" be organized if the constitution and laws of the United States were to be binding? How could Jews in Ararat be loyal to America if the asylum was "temporary and provisionary?" 31 Except for a vague reference to non-Jews being invited to settle in Grand Island, he ignored these questions. Inviting non-Jews was a standard method of avoiding charges of Jewish separatism. When, in 1843, Noah advocated a "Hebrew College" (boarding school) for the training of Jewish young men, there was again the assurance that "the school would be open to all denominations." 32
By setting up a Jewish government on Ararat, Noah effectively negated his 1820 distinction between "mingling together [with Christians]" and "distinct associations [with Jews]." As the dedication ceremony demonstrated, however, the identity-assimilation problem remained unsolved. The service at St. Paul's Church seemed neither Jewish nor Christian, and it offended many. Efforts to resolve other areas of tension, particularly polity and foreign policy, proved no more successful.
Ararat needed a leader. In order to interest "enlightened" Jews in coming to Ararat, Noah believed that it needed an exceptional leader, one who would be colorful, charismatic, and above all, traditional. Tradition, however, prevented the democratic election of a sovereign. The Bible contained no democratic elections, and besides, who would have voted? On the other hand an undemocratically elected sovereign was anathema to Americans, and certainly could not have been advocated by a Democratic politician. Noah found the solution to this problem in the Book of Judges. The Judges sprang from the people; they were not kings, and leadership did not pass to their sons. More importantly, "the manner and forms adopted in choosing the Judges of Israel" were "difficult... to decide with certainty." On the basis of so much ignorance, Noah had no trouble in convincing himself that the office of judge "conform[ed] in some respect to that of [American] Chief Magistrate." It followed that this form of leadership was "in accordance with the genius and disposition of the people of this country." Noah hoped that this explanation would satisfy his "enlightened" listeners. But he thought that the "unenlightened" abroad who read his proclamation might want something more simple. Consequently, in that document he boldly credited his office to "the grace of God." 33
Foreign policy presented another clash between Ararat and America. As an American, Mordecai Noah advocated the Greek cause in its struggle for independence from Turkey. He even wrote a pro-Greek play, The Grecian Captive, or the Fall of Athens. Yet, as a Jew, he feared for the hundreds of thousands of his brethren living under Turkish rule "who would be instantly sacrificed by their relentless rulers upon the least succor being accorded to the revolutionists." Noah, therefore, struck a compromise: he enjoined Jews "not to mingle in this contest," and at the same time, he ordered them "not to throw obstacles in the way of its [Greece's] successful advancement." 34 The compromise was a weak one. Noah the "judge" could not even begin to resolve
72 Jacksonian Jew
the tensions between Ararat and America. He ignored problems or resorted to mythic solutions. He never realized that it was impossible to integrate fully into the American mainstream, and to preserve perfectly Jewish ethnic identity at one and the same time. He never realized that the American Jew lived in a perpetual state of tension between "American" and "Jew."
Jews and ethnics generally were and remain sociologically ambivalent -- torn between the demands of their group and the demands of their country. Colonizers often claim success in resolving this dilemma. But if they simultaneously promise the blessings of both integration and segregation they are doomed, like Ararat, to fail. 35 And no wonder. Structural polarities are resolved only in utopia and the world of myth. In the everyday world, basic irresolvable tensions remain. 36
The response to Noah's 1825 extravaganza differed markedly from the reaction he had encountered in 1820. Then, the vast majority of newspapers supported him and wished his project well. After the Ararat dedication, reaction varied much more widely. Buffalo area newspapers understandably favored the project. Their region stood to gain from the endeavor, and they surely found Noah less visionary than some of the other radical and religious figures who kept western New York ("the burned over district") in a state of ferment. Elsewhere, many newspapers printed Noah's proclamation without comment, or, as in the case of the New York Statesman, confined their remarks to superficial praise of Noah's "liberal views." Noah's political opponents, however, had a field day. The New York American suggested that Noah find "a convenient apartment in the lunatic asylum," and then hinted darkly that Ararat might be designed "for swindling the wealthy Jews of Europe out of their money." The widely read and influential Niles' Weekly Register called Ararat a "land jobbing business," Noah, a potentially "great autocrat," and the entire project, nothing but "a very good business indeed." Even the New York Mirror, which was usually sympathetic to him, could not restrain its mirth: "Fall down! ye men of Israel, and worship this new Judge! Pay your capitation tax, and seven millions will forthwith enrich the treasury of your great Judge -- Mordecai Manuel Noah." 37
These criticisms were understandable, if not totally fair responses to Noah's theatrics. But they left the "judge" with an easy answer. His theatrics, he claimed, were designed for the "unenlightened" Jews of the world, not for sophisticated Americans. More important criticism came from the American Atheneum. Its learned editor wondered how Noah reconciled his support and defense of the Constitution with the undemocratic method by which he assumed his "ample and responsible" position of Judge of Israel. Perhaps, he suggested, Noah "considered himself the people, " and therefore had "no other but himself to elect and to be elected." Isaac Harby in the Charleston Courier went further. Having opposed the colony scheme from the start, he now branded Noah as impious. Jews, he said, should wait for the Messiah, "who shall lead them to New Jerusalem not to New York and shall show his divine
An Asylum for the Jews 73
credentials in a guise somewhat different" from the one assumed by Noah. Harby held Noah's judgeship to be "contrary to scriptural authority," and he advised his fellow editor to reread the biblical books of Judges and Samuel. He next levelled his guns at Noah's ceremony and proclamation. He indicated that, according to his understanding of Judaism, to put a stone with the words of the Hebrew "Shemong" [Sh'ma] on a Christian Communion table "around which the sacrament is taken" was nothing less than blasphemy. To invite Jews to come to a pagan city was "profane." To call Ararat a city of refuge, when in fact it resembled the biblical cities of refuge not at all, was simply "ignorant." As for Noah's decrees, Harby ridiculed one after another. 38
Noah dismissed Harby as a "new light" (referring, of course, to his role in the Charleston Reform Movement) and declared the southern editor "unacquainted with the essential form of the [Jewish] religion." But Harby's criticisms were widely echoed by American Jews. Moses E. Levy attacked Noah for his "folly and sacrilegious presumption." Rachel Mordecai Lazarus doubted that anyone would submit "to the self-constituted 'governor' and 'judge of Israel'," and observed that most people deemed the entire scheme "visionary." Even eight years later, Benjamin Gratz still would have nothing to do with Noah: "his trick upon our nation to make money was too shallow to gull them: filthy lucre was his object." 39
The critical reaction of his fellow Jews surprised Noah not at all. Back in 1824, he had told Peter Porter that his project was objectionable to American Jews "from the fear that the conduct of Jewish emigrants might possibly bring them into disrepute." Subsequent events did not alter his analysis. Despite the many substantive criticisms of Ararat, Noah continued to believe that status fears, fears which certainly affected later Jewish views on immigration, were the reason why "The Jews of the United States... have not been favourably inclined towards the project." Upon reflection, Noah conceded that his proclamation "should have been specifically directed to the European Jews;" it had no application or meaning to Jews living freely in the United States. Still, he remained convinced that those Jews who needed an asylum would avail themselves of the advantages which Ararat held forth. 40
Noah was wrong European Jews did not flock to Ararat. Nor was there any great support for Noah in the European Jewish press. Indeed, aside from the favorable response of some German Verein members, all Noah heard from abroad were words of ridicule. Judah Jeteles, a leader of the Austrian Jewish Enlightenment and the editor of the Hebrew journal Bikkurei Haittim, called Noah a "crazy man," and urged Jews to remain where they were. These sentiments were echoed privately by Rabbi Hayyim Joseph Pollak of Hungary. Abraham Andrade, Rabbi of Bordeaux, saw Noah as a simple charlatan. The poet Henrich Heine dismissed him as amusing. But none of these responses received nearly as much publicity as the letter sent to Noah by the Paris Chief Rabbi, Abraham de Cologna, representing himself and the Chief Rabbi of England. Cologna lampooned Ararat as "the chimerical
74 Jacksonian Jew
consulate of a pseudo-restorer" and "a mere jest." He sternly warned Noah, whom he admitted was a "visionary of good intentions," that his project was "an act of high treason against the Divine Majesty." 41
Perhaps, as Noah claimed, these rabbis merely acted on government orders. In Vienna, the police actually had seized the Ararat Proclamation. But the document received so much publicity in Europe (mentions of it have been found in newspapers from Britain, France, Germany, Austria, Russia, and Hungary) that word must have filtered down to ordinary Jews. The fact that Ararat nevertheless remained desolate indicates that Noah had misread the world Jewish situation. Jews, even "unenlightened" Jews, neither needed nor wanted an isolated asylum in a faraway land ruled by a self-appointed judge. To leave the uncertainties of Europe for an ill-conceived colony riddled with internal contradictions made no sense at all. 42
A boat named Noah's Ark set sail from Grand Island in October 1825 to take part in the celebrations opening the Erie Canal. The five-ton boat was "handsomely fitted" and "freighted with all manner of animals and creepy things." It received considerable attention. Early in its journey, Noah's Ark ran into unspecified trouble. It turned back and never arrived in New York City. 43
Noah's project soon went the way of Noah's Ark. Three weeks after Ararat's dedication, the "Judge of Israel" advised a friend to delay his purchase of land on Grand Island. A few months later, on January 24, 1826, the Black Rock Gazette sadly announced that "the probability of his [Noah's] success in getting together the Jews is at an end." ...
Remainder of chapter & endnotes not transcribed.
This text copyright © 1981 by Jonathan D. Sarna
only limited, "fair-use" exerpts are presented here.
|