When General Grant Expelled the Jews

by Jonathan D. Sarna

  Benjamin Franklin Peixotto (illustration credit ill.28)

  “I am ready and willing to go to Bucharest,” Peixotto announced in a dramatic letter, putting forth his own name for the consulship that had been all but promised to Adolphe Buchner. He understood that the position carried no salary. He himself would have to raise whatever funds he needed. He also understood that the situation for Romania’s Jews was not nearly so dire as the sensational press had first reported. Much to the embarrassment of American Jewish leaders, reports of large-scale massacres had turned out to be greatly exaggerated. But Romanian Jews remained deeply oppressed (“their property and lives treated as so much paper”), and Sneersohn had persuaded Peixotto to make the plight of “our poor unhappy people” his mission. “Heaven,” the would-be consul piously avowed, “hath not placed it in my power to show the extent of the sacrifice I would make for suffering humanity, for persecuted Israel.” His goal, as he prepared to offer that sacrifice, was twofold: to “revolution[ize] the social and religious life of our people” and to “effectually secur[e] their civil and political rights.” Abraham Seligman (brother of Joseph and Jesse) supported his plan, he reported, and he expected that the Seligman brothers would also help to fund it. As for Buchner, Peixotto had it on the high authority of Rabbi Sneersohn (“my constant companion and counsellor”) that he was “in no way fitted and must not be confirmed.”21

  Earlier, Sneersohn had himself written directly to President Grant about Romania (“have compassion upon five hundred thousand creatures of God left to the bloodiest ruthlessness—the most cruel harshness”). Never wanting in self-confidence, the rabbi urged the appointment of “a Jewish citizen … as Consul,” a slap at Buchner, who, like Sneersohn’s nemesis, Consul Beauboucher of Jerusalem, was not a citizen. “Such an example of so great and mighty a nation in its appreciation of men and its honor of their rights without regard to religious belief,” he advised the president, “could not fail to make an impression.” Peixotto, who was at once native-born, religiously engaged, and highly accomplished, was in Sneersohn’s view the perfect choice. Although Simon Wolf was unimpressed by “the machinations of Rabbi Sneersohn” and considered the man “unpredictable and impracticable,” and although Peixotto admitted to not having supported Grant in the 1868 election, Wolf “very reluctantly” sent his name to Grant and withdrew Buchner’s. Grant obligingly forwarded the name to the Senate and, by unanimous consent, that body approved the nomination on June 29. Even Isaac Mayer Wise, long a critic of Grant, applauded this nomination. “Mr. Peixotto,” he editorialized, “is the right man in the right place. He is able, zealous and patriotic. The thanks of the Hebrew citizens are due to President Grant for this judicious selection.”22

  Months passed while Peixotto wound up his affairs and raised funds for what was now called, as if it were a religious undertaking, his “mission.” The wealthy Seligmans agreed to contribute or raise over $5,000 to enable the new consul, as Jesse Seligman contemptuously put it, “to make the trial for a couple of years with those benighted and semi-civilized heathens, our co-religionists in Romania.” Jews who were less wealthy but more altruistic, B’nai B’rith members in particular, contributed, too. Like many a Protestant missionary, however, Peixotto through the years would be perennially short of money. Romanian Jewry’s immense needs, coupled with those of his own large family, would regularly outstrip his all-too-meager means.23

  In the meanwhile, on December 8, Peixotto traveled to Washington and, in the company of Simon Wolf, met with the president. Grant, both men later recalled, spoke unequivocally about human rights. He described “respect for human rights” as the “first duty of those set as rulers over nations” and specifically included both Blacks and Jews as being among the unfortunates whom “those in authority” should go out of their way to protect, “to rescue and redeem them and raise them up to equality with the most enlightened.” As before, when he spoke out on behalf of Jews in Russia, so, too, now Grant paid no heed to those who urged silence concerning the internal affairs of other nations, nor did he consider America’s foreign policy interests paramount. Instead, telling Jewish leaders just what they wanted to hear, he declared that “the story of the sufferings of the Hebrews of Roumania profoundly touches every sensibility of our nature.…It is one long series of outrage and wrong; and even if there be exaggeration in the accounts which have reached us, enough is evident to prove the imperative duty of all civilized nations to extend their moral aid in behalf of a people so unhappy.”24

  As if to underscore his commitment to human rights, as well as his atonement for past sins against the Jewish people, Grant subsequently wrote in his own hand (and without consulting his secretary of state) a letter of introduction for Peixotto that spelled out the unique nature of his mission:

  EXECUTIVE MANSION

  Washington Dec 8., 1870

  The bearer of this letter Hon Benj F. Peixotto, who has accepted the important though unremunerative position of U.S. Consul-General 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 who are laboring under severe oppression than for any benefits to accrue to himself, a work which all good citizens will wish him the greatest success in. The United States knowing no distinction of her own citizens on account of religion or nativity naturally believe in a civilization the world over which will secure the same universal liberal views.

  U. S. Grant 25

  Simon Wolf delivered this remarkable document to Peixotto and, sensing its significance, likewise provided a copy to the Associated Press—without, however, obtaining prior presidential permission. His intentions, like those of so many who leak government documents to the press, were (at least in his own mind) entirely for the good. He believed that the letter underscored America’s solemn commitment to human rights the world over—for Jews no less than for Blacks. He considered it proof that Grant had learned the lesson of General Orders No. 11. He even, according to Peixotto, felt that publicizing the document “would make the name of General Grant immortal.” All of these good intentions, however, counted for little in Washington. The misstep almost resulted in the revocation of Peixotto’s appointment.26

  Hamilton Fish was furious when he read the text of Grant’s note in the newspaper. He had previously made clear to Peixotto that “he mistakes the object of his appointment” if his principal goal was to aid his fellow Jews, and he sternly informed him that as consul he had “no political functions or responsibilities.” Having little sympathy with Grant’s effort to inject human rights into American diplomacy, he now expressed to Wolf his “deep dis[s]atisfaction” with Peixotto. It was, he thought, an “indignity” that Peixotto had gone to Grant after Fish had refused him a “special letter” of introduction, and it was even worse that the extraordinary letter had now been published. Writing in his diary, Fish expressed a strong desire to “revoke his appointment.”27

  Wolf, whether out of base cowardice or clever duplicity, failed to confess his own role in obtaining and publishing Grant’s note. Instead, he concurred with all that Fish complained about, and then persuaded the secretary not to revoke Peixotto’s appointment. As a result, the document that Grant wrote was widely publicized and remains a pioneering statement on the role of human rights in American diplomacy, a signal achievement of Grant’s presidency. By contrast, the objections that Fish articulated received no notice at all. Peixotto, meanwhile, set off for Romania.28

  There, much as Rabbi Sneersohn had anticipated and Secretary of State Fish had feared, Peixotto devoted the bulk of his energies to improving the lot of the country’s Jews. He strongly advocated for their emancipation and citizenship; promoted education and modernization; created and subsidized a pro-Jewish liberal newspaper; established a Jewish fraternal organization parallel to B’nai B’rith; and in 1872 took the lead in aiding the Jews of Ismail and surrounding comm
unities who were viciously attacked and plundered after a Jewish apostate, who had robbed and defiled a church, was tortured into implicating wealthy Jews as abettors of his crime. Peixotto provided refuge in his own home for some of those attacked, and eventually won the release of all the innocents. In a private letter, he gave vent to his true feelings about Romania at that time: “The lightning of heaven,” he wrote, “should blast a country so infamous.”29

  In response, Peixotto advocated large-scale Jewish emigration to the United States, an objective that Romania’s antisemitic government, eager to be rid of its Jews, enthusiastically encouraged. He even contacted his old friend Governor Edward S. Salomon, who, as we have seen, was busy investing in land, about the possibility of settling Romanian Jews in the Washington Territory. Revealingly, Peixotto’s plan closely echoed Grant’s own thinking about how to empower persecuted minorities. In 1870, Grant had proposed acquiring Santo Domingo as an American protectorate, in part so that mistreated ex-slaves might immigrate there. His goal, as he later explained, was to make “the negro ‘master of the situation,’ by enabling him to demand his rights at home on pain of finding them elsewhere.” Peixotto, in 1872, applied this same rationale with respect to Jews:

  Let 20,000 go to America & the report they will send back will bring 20,000 more. Then the Roumanians will do as the Egyptians did, they will cling to the skirts of the remainder and pray them with streaming eyes to abide in the land of their birth!30

  Emigration fever quickly spread among the poorer Jews of Romania. Peixotto’s plan even spurred the publication of a Hebrew volume by journalist Leon Horowitz describing the wonders of America to potential immigrants. Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise in Cincinnati enthusiastically endorsed the idea: “Let them come, one and all, farmers, mechanics, arti[s]ans, young people willing and able to work; let them come one and all, we have plenty of room and bread for a few millions more.” Several notable American newspapers, led by the New York Herald, agreed. But the plan also met with a barrage of criticism from those who both feared its costs and implications and doubted its feasibility. The Anglo-Jewish barrister and politician Sir Francis Goldsmid worried that it would “divert attention from the really important question, that of Jewish rights.” A group of wealthy and privileged Romanian Jews complained that the plan made them appear unpatriotic. A distinguished gathering of Jewish leaders, meeting in Brussels, unanimously rejected the plan as “injudicious and inadvisable.” Even Peixotto’s erstwhile “constant companion and counsellor,” Haim Zvi Sneersohn, attacked the plan. Since he thought that Romanian Jews should remove to the Holy Land to help spur restoration to Zion (“a Jewish independent commonwealth in the land of our forefathers”), the rabbi assailed the plan of his former protégé in what has been described as “biblical but ill-tempered invective.”31c

  By contrast, Hamilton Fish now had nothing but complimentary things to say about Peixotto, particularly his role in aiding persecuted Jews and building a diplomatic coalition in favor of human rights. The secretary of state enjoyed seeing other foreign consuls take their lead from an American, and heard good reports concerning Peixotto from a Russian diplomat whom he trusted. The idea that America, having cast slavery aside, might serve as a beacon of freedom to persecuted peoples had apparently grown on him. “I know you will be glad to learn that we have sustained Mr. Peixotto in all he has done and will continue to support him in whatever he does discreetly for the benefit of his Jewish friends,” the secretary of state told a surprised Adolphus Solomons in 1872, in Grant’s presence. Fish admitted that at first he found Peixotto “a little too enthusiastic” and “took him to task,” but now, he repeated, “I am perfectly satisfied with all he has done.” The president, Solomons reported, listened with evident interest to most of the conversation—a sure sign that Fish was speaking as much to him as to Solomons.32

  Peixotto’s adroit mixture of consular diplomacy and human rights advocacy during the five years and three months he spent in Romania (1870–1876) did not, in the end, secure full civil and religious rights for Jews. Nor did they revolutionize Jewish social and religious life in the country. Nor did they produce any plan for resettling thousands of Romanian Jews in the United States. But if his own goals went unrealized, Peixotto did abundantly fulfill Ulysses S. Grant’s goals in appointing him. He engaged in “missionary work” for the benefit of Jews “laboring under severe oppression.” He furthered the then novel idea in American diplomacy that the “United States knowing no distinction of her own citizens on account of religion or nativity naturally believe in a civilization the world over which will secure the same universal liberal views.” He articulated a vision of America as a proponent of universal freedom. And he powerfully symbolized the emergence of America’s Jews on the world scene. The fact that a proud, publicly self-identifying, energetic, and somewhat brash “Israelite” represented the United States in Bucharest delivered the message to persecuted peoples everywhere that “America was different.” Having internalized that message of hope, tens of thousands of Romanian Jews would immigrate to the United States in the twentieth century. At the same time, the Jewish consul likewise delivered the message that, as president, Ulysses S. Grant was different, a far cry from the general who had expelled “Jews as a class” back in 1862.

  Whether other American Jews who had opposed Grant now accepted the idea that Grant was different remained to be seen. His reelection campaign, in 1872, looked to be a referendum on that question. It would show whether he had successfully redeemed himself with Jewish voters: whether his postelection apology (“I do not sustain that order”), his unprecedented number of Jewish appointments, his sensitivity to human rights for Jews abroad, and his remarkable letter to Benjamin F. Peixotto had persuaded them that he was now their friend and ally.

  Democrats, seeking to prevent any such alliance, naturally reminded Jews of General Orders No. 11 (“that infamous order banishing the Jews as a class from his district because, forsooth, a few of them were petty traders”). An anti-Grant cartoon even offered up a visual reminder of the order. Produced by Matt Morgan, chief cartoonist for Leslie’s Illustrated, it recalled a famous scene from Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, where Shylock, depicted by Morgan as a bareheaded, noble, and oddly sympathetic Jew, explained to Antonio, the stony-faced and obdurate Ulys-ses S. Grant, why, having insulted him in the past, he now had no claim upon him for help. A copy of General Orders No. 11, posted on the wall, reminded readers just what those past insults were. The cartoon encouraged latter-day Jews to respond to Grant on Election Day just as (the noble) Shylock had once responded to Antonio: by recalling the insult and wreaking revenge. So balanced a portrait of Shylock—implying that Democratic voters should side with him—was quite remarkable for its time and signaled that Americans viewed Jews far more positively in 1872 than they had a decade earlier. It may also have served to tacitly critique the pro-Grant cartoonist Thomas Nast, who had earlier employed the same scene from The Merchant of Venice to attack August Belmont as a “Shylock” for supplying money and votes to the Democrats. But would Jews really ally themselves with “the party of Shylock” to vote against Grant’s reelection?33

  Matt Morgan’s cartoon “Then and Now” carried a caption from The Merchant of Venice with Shylock, in this case, declaiming his words to Grant: “You call me misbeliever, cut-throat dog, And spit upon my Jewish gaberdine, And all for use of that which is mine own. Well then, it now appears you need my help.” (illustration credit ill.29)

  To encourage them, Isaac Mayer Wise dredged up the fact that back in 1861 the new vice president on Grant’s Republican ticket, Senator Henry Wilson, had condemned Louisiana’s Jewish senator, Judah P. Benjamin, as “the son of that race which stoned the prophets and crucified the Redeemer of the world.” He failed to mention that the Democratic candidate for the vice presidency, Missouri’s B. Gratz Brown, had supported the “religious amendment” to the Constitution. Other Democrats recycled anti-Grant propaganda from the 1868 election campai
gn. But in the end, none of this carried much weight with Jewish voters. Even Wise admitted that Grant had “made sufficient atonement” for General Orders No. 11, and that “we have long ago forgiven him that blunder.” The Jewish Messenger observed that other Jews had likewise forgiven him, burying “their private feelings in consideration of the eminent public services of the General.” The Hebrew Leader went so far as to publish a long adulatory article on Grant, concluding that he was entitled to “the gratitude and respect of the Jewish-American citizens.” Even Jewish voters in the South, who had united against Grant four years earlier, now expressed themselves in his favor. A straw poll of fifty-three Southern Jewish delegates to a B’nai B’rith convention found forty-five Grant supporters and only eight supporters of his opponent, newspaperman Horace Greeley.34

  In the end, of course, Grant won reelection by a landslide. His victory—the largest, in percentage terms, for any candidate between Andrew Jackson in 1828 and Theodore Roosevelt in 1904—was mostly due to his domestic and foreign policy successes coupled with Greeley’s comically poor showing on the stump (one observer characterized Greeley as “so conceited, fussy and foolish that he damages every case he wants to support”). Still, when Grant subsequently expressed satisfaction “that the people had vindicated his private character,” he might also have had the Jewish people in mind. Over the course of four years, he had largely won them over. In doing so, primarily through his sensitivity to minority rights at home and human rights abroad, he helped to clarify his own presidential vision. The American values that he now trumpeted were values that Jews held exceedingly dear.35