I have to agree that it is a bit weird to find that there were Jewish Confederates. I was aware of that, and I know about Judah Benjamin, but I still find it weird.

Basically, Jews have settled in all sorts of places in the world where you wouldn't expect to find them. There are even Chinese Jews!

I have a good friend who lives in GA whose husband is a southern Jew. It is very strange to look at him - he is one of those guys who looks Jewish at first blush - and then hear a southern accent coming out of his mouth.

(05-02-2013 04:05 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  I remember years ago being surprised at the fairly large Jewish population of the South during the 19th century. I had skimmed through a book entitled The Jewish Confederates by Robert Rosen that came out about ten years ago. I just googled it and here is some of what it and reviewers say:

''Many folks,'' says Rosen, 53, ''are reluctant to admit that a people known for liberal views, and for annually celebrating their own freedom from slavery in Egypt during the Passover holiday, supported the Confederacy, which defended human bondage. It's not something many Jews want to hear.''

Not only did thousands of Southern Jews fight in the Confederate army, but hundreds were slave owners, including an ancestor of the Regensteins. This is a paradox that many Jews -- long known for ardent support of the civil rights movement -- find hard to swallow.

''To mother, it's horrifying,'' says Regenstein, whose father, Louis Regenstein, was a prominent lawyer who did free legal consulting for predominantly black Clark Atlanta University for years. ''My ancestors have been in this country, in the South, since before the American Revolution. We were part of the culture, the country, so naturally, my ancestors fought for their country, and we're very proud of that.''

Rosen, who is Jewish, reports in his meticulously documented 378-page book that up to 3,000 Jews donned Confederate gray. The proportion was much higher than in the North, where maybe 8,000 out of 200,000 Jews took up arms, says Mark Greenberg, chief historian for the Institute of Southern Jewish Life in Jackson, Miss.

Contrary to popular belief, ''Jews had found themselves very much at home in the South, much more so than elsewhere,'' says the University of Georgia's Emory Thomas, a historian and author of many Civil War books. ''They were accepted members of the community, and therefore they cast their loyalties with this new Confederacy, bought bonds and did everything patriotic Southerners would do.''

Many were so patriotic, he adds, that ''there was a lively discussion in the Richmond papers pointing out that the Jewish population of the city had supplied more Confederate soldiers than the population as a whole, in terms of percentage.''

Few Jews know that Judah Benjamin, a famous Louisiana lawyer, not only served in the U.S. Senate, but also was Jefferson Davis' attorney general, secretary of war and secretary of state.

''As the years have gone on, having Confederate ancestors has become very politically incorrect,'' Rosen adds. ''Academics who write the history, after all, are especially vulnerable to [political correctness] on college campuses, and they especially want to avoid the association with slavery.'' Audiences have been, on occasion, angry.

''Many modern Jews reject the idea that Jews could ever have supported a cause or government which supported slavery,'' Rosen says. ''That's not logical, considering how long Jews have been in the South. But it's how a lot of folks feel.''

---

My friends and I visited Savannah GA specifically to see Elton John in concert there last September. We spent the day of the concert on a hop-on, hop-off bus tour and had a blast. I was interested to learn how far back the Jewish community of Savannah goes. And there was a synagogue across the street from our hotel!

I loved Savannah and hope to visit it again someday.

(05-02-2013 03:38 PM)BettyO Wrote:  I have a very high regard for (as well as many very, very dear) Jewish friends -

There was a large community of Jews in Richmond from the 18th Century on. I'm proud to say that one of our oldest if NOT the oldest cemetery in Richmond is The Franklin Street Burial grounds. It is Jewish and dates to 1791. The Hebrew Cemetery is the second oldest and is across from Shockoe Hill Cemetery and also a large Confederate section. Both of these sites are beautiful. During the war there was a good sized Jewish community - all Confederate and all proud of their Southern heritage. Judah Benjamin, Secretary of War was also Jewish.

I got a good historical background on the role of the Jews during the Civil War from a former guide at Surratt House who drove from the Philadelphia area twice a month to give tours at our museum. He was Jewish and a Civil War addict, so it was perfectly natural for him to discuss things with me whenever he had a chance because he knew that I loved history.

In fact, he introduced me to Philip Whitlock, a Jew in the Confederate army who donned civilian clothes and ran the blockade into Maryland via the same routes that Booth left the state - through Southern Maryland and across the Potomac into the Northern Neck of Virginia. His purpose in sneaking into the federal capital was to purchase needed goods to sell to his camp mates back in the Confederacy. In his recollections, he mentions being at Surratt Tavern, being ushered immediately into the family parlor, having dinner there, and even watching men having target practice in the side yard.

Laurie -

I had forgotten about Philip Whitlock! My mother knew his daughter when she was a girl. They lived here in Richmond. Her mother (my grandmother) and Whitlock's daughter were close friends. I never knew that he was affiliated with the Surratt's though! WOW!

"We cannot escape history..." Wonder who said that?

(04-30-2013 08:19 PM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote:  The North was ahead of the South not only in manufacturing, but in education, "internal improvements" (which Southerners tended to oppose), upward mobility, immigration, finance and many other things that were vital to a strong, diversified economy.

'Eva Elisabeth Wrote:'Liz, this sounds as if the South - irrespective of slavery - grew increasingly inferior to the North.

So, is industrialization, finance, a strong economy, etc., the measure of superiority/inferiority? If it is, then the Native Americans were practically wiped out because their culture was inferior. Same with Native African culture.

(And no, I'm not comparing apples and oranges.)

If we can talk about the South's culture/economy/etc. (slavery aside) as being inferior to the North's, then why can't we also talk about other, nonwhite cultures as being inferior? That's my point.

Liz-Thank you for your help on Genteel and Gentile! My mistake!

(05-02-2013 08:58 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  [quote='Liz Rosenthal' pid='17383' dateline='1367371148']The North was ahead of the South not only in manufacturing, but in education, "internal improvements" (which Southerners tended to oppose), upward mobility, immigration, finance and many other things that were vital to a strong, diversified economy.

Eva Elisabeth]Liz, this sounds as if the South - irrespective of slavery - grew increasingly inferior to the North.[/quote Wrote:So, is industrialization, finance, a strong economy, etc., the measure of superiority/inferiority? If it is, then the Native Americans were practically wiped out because their culture was inferior. Same with Native African culture.

(And no, I'm not comparing apples and oranges.)

If we can talk about the South's culture/economy/etc. (slavery aside) as being inferior to the North's, then why can't we also talk about other, nonwhite cultures as being inferior? That's my point.

Using "inferior/superior" was indeed bad terminology. I just intended to compare the economic preconditions and to question their possible impact on the outcome of the war, since most wars are, at least partly, based on economic reasons, differences or dissatisfaction.

I wasn't calling anybody out on the terminology used here, even though it may have looked that way. I hate political correctness.

(05-01-2013 03:41 PM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 01:43 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Liz, surely Lincoln provided the necessary will, and from the very beginning he wanted to bring in the full power of the North against the rebellions. But if he had been more successfull in urging and pressing his generals during 1861/62, do you think the war would have come to an earlier end? And what would have happened to slavery then? (Certainly there might have been and still be endless speculation on this, but I'm curious on personal opinions.)

It might have come to an earlier end... and the great question is, as you stated, would slavery have remained intact? In a way, General McClellan did Lincoln, the abolitionists and the slaves a great favor in being such a timid military leader. If the war had ended in mid-1862, Lincoln wouldn't have had the authority, as Commander-in-Chief, to issue the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure. Meanwhile, he was trying to persuade the border states to get rid of the institution, but wasn't getting any cooperation.

The most that might have happened was Lincoln ensuring that slavery did not spread to the territories, which is the reason he came to political prominence in the first place.

I'm just speculating here, but perhaps, if Lincoln had been luckier with his generals earlier, the war might have ended a year or two sooner, but not necessarily in 1862. After all, success in Virginia may or may not have led the rebel government to surrender. In that case, Lincoln would still have needed his troops in the West to move eastward, conquering the rebel army as they went. That was going to take time. So, while Lincoln might have issued his Emancipation Proclamation, there might have been little chance to push for the 13th Amendment.

By the way, Eva, I just finished reading Tad Lincoln's Father, which I'm sure you'll love. In fact, anyone interested in gathering genuine snatches of Lincoln's personality would love this book. It's unfortunate, though, that the author, Julia Taft Bayne, who wrote the book as a senior citizen sometime in the 1920s (I believe), still used much of the terminology to refer to African-Americans that people had done in the mid-19th century. The book contained many references to "darkies," and she even referred to one of her family's black servants as "our yellow girl," by which I assume she meant a light-skinned black woman. So, if one can get past that cringe-worthy stuff, the book is quite an enjoyable read.

One more comment on Tad Lincoln's Father, though. I wonder how accurate a lot of the dialog among the children really was. For one thing, Julia gave Tad such a starring role that you would have thought he was the cleverest and most loquacious kid around! As he was only about eight years old at the time, and spoke with a severe impediment, I question whether Tad said all the things that Julia had him saying. I would have thought brother Willie, with his gifted intellect and more mature age, might have been the one to offer most of the entertaining observations. But I suppose that's a minor quibble; presumably, the incidents described in the book really happened, regardless of who did he talking.

Liz, you were right, I really enjoyed reading "Tad Lincoln's father". The title might be a bit misleading since the book is as much about J.T.'s life. But she reveals some interesting insights about her education and (social) habits, e.g. I was amazed that monolingual foreign language teaching (students were only allowed to speak French at school) had already been practised in those days. I suppose Mary's education had been about the same, what a difference to A.L.'s poor frontier schooling!
I was also pleased with the (uncommmon) point of view on Mary, whom J.T. first of all introduces and presents as a lovable, likable character. Whatever positive I had read about Mary before, her skills and abilities had always been stated in a way an attorney defends an dafendant, but none of this had suggested truely lovable character traits.
Back to school(ing). J.T. mentions that during wartime no schools were open in Washington (p.65). Is this true? As far as I know, Washington was only once (in July 1864)seriously threatened, so why? Was it due to the risk of passing on epidemic deseases? Were the buildings used as military hospitals or did the teaching staff have to serve as nurses or soldiers?
Finally, what do the 3"R's" in "we formed some acquaintance with the '3R's'" (p.22) stand for? (Whoever could give a hint,please help!)

Good morning, Eva. I must have a different edition - I cannot find it on p. 22 in the edition I have. But, generally speaking, I think the 3 R's are a reference to reading, writing, and arithmetic. I have seen other references on this, but I think those 3 are the most common.

Good morning, Roger, you might be right as the sentence continues:" the 3 'R's', history, literature and other studies." I supposed the R's were initials representing words of etiquette or virtues. BTW, for the article about Mary's trips to Europe on your website there is one source mentioned as to be "Mary Todd Lincoln's travels to Europe" by Dr. W. Temple. Is this a book or an article? I unsuccessfully tried to Google it or find it on Amazon.

The "3 R's" are shorthand for "Reading,Riting and Rithmetick." They encompass the basic primary school education in Reading,Writing and Mathematics [Arithmetick]. I believe the public school movement took off in the US in the 1840's. Our British cousins confuse the issue by referring to private non state schools as public schools.
Tom

(05-11-2013 06:12 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Good morning, Roger, you might be right as the sentence continues:" the 3 'R's', history, literature and other studies." I supposed the R's were initials representing words of etiquette or virtues. BTW, for the article about Mary's trips to Europe on your website there is one source mentioned as to be "Mary Todd Lincoln's travels to Europe" by Dr. W. Temple. Is this a book or an article? I unsuccessfully tried to Google it or find it on Amazon.

Eva, there is a .pdf file of the article here. However, my favorite source of information on Mary's European travels is the book Mary Todd Lincoln: Her Life and Letters by Justin G. Turner and Linda Levitt Turner. Mary's letters written in Europe contain many fascinating insights into her trips, feelings, observations, etc.

May I ask - the cheapest paperback edition of this book available on Amazon is € 83 ($ 107). Is it such expensive in the US, too?

Here is a page from amazon on the prices for used hardback copies of the book

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0...006&sr=1-1

Compare that to $99.99 for a new copy.