|
by Isaac Leeser
Our
readers are aware that the liberty of conscience and political equality
enjoyed by the Jews in Northern America (United States and Canada) and
the West India Islands, as also in France, Belgium, and Holland, are not
granted to them in other countries, but that we are subject more or less
to certain disqualifications for the sake of our religious opinions. It
is not alleged that we are not intelligent enough for the rights of men,
but that it is unsafe to intrust us with political power in Christian
countries. Even in at least one state of this confederacy, to wit,
Massachusetts, and probably also in New Hampshire, Jews are ineligible
to certain offices; in North Carolina they are eligible to none
whatever. In Massachusetts and New Hampshire, the question of removing
these disabilities has never been brought forward, to our knowledge; but
in North Carolina, at the late revisal of the constitution, a clause
equalizing the Jews was positively rejected; whereas, at the same time,
Catholics were emancipated, though they were before that time also
excluded from all political functions. We may incidentally mention, that
civil disabilities attach to this day in New Hampshire to Roman
Catholics; and this therefore is the only state where any sect of
Christianity is proscribed by the others; and within a year the
proposition to remove this restriction from the constitution was
negatived by the popular vote. We are thus particular, to avoid any suspicion as though we would conceal any fact which might
establish the charge of illiberality against certain portions of this
confederacy, which we have always held up as the seat of that equality
for which Jews had sighed in vain for many centuries previous to the
American Revolution. In dealing with any subject, it is best, according to our view, to state all that can be said, so as not to be
compelled to contradict or limit afterwards what has once been advanced.
Although, therefore, the admission made, that in some states of the
Union the Jews are not admitted to political rights, may perhaps be used
as an argument in other countries, still we cannot avoid stating that
the fact is so, and we will add, at the same time, that it is an
exception merely to the otherwise absence of religious disqualification
in all the other states; and that in all the three mentioned, but few
Jews can be found. It must be observed, at the same time, that the
Jewish religion is nowhere subjected to any restriction, and that if we
desired it we could erect places of worship in every town, although we
could not be elected to the offices for which the profession of
Christianity is considered a pre-requisite. The time was when Maryland
acted upon the same principle of exclusion; but it is now about fourteen
years since this odious feature was banished by the good sense of the
people of that enlightened state. During the many years that the
question was pending, (for this triumph of liberal principles was not
achieved without much labour, nor until after many delays,) the few
highly respectable Israelites who then lived in Maryland took a noble
stand in defence of the good cause; they made no concession; they did
not explain away the features of their faith, which might appear harsh and unpalatable to the Christians; but asked for their rights, and obtained them,
as becomes freemen, unconditionally and without any trammels whatever.
And at the present day, the Jews in Maryland are free, like all the
other citizens. At the time when this act of justice was awarded, there
was not even a Synagogue in all the state; hence it must be considered
as the abstract triumph of liberality over bigotry and prejudice; and we
therefore rejoiced the more at the passage of the bill in question,
since it proved that Americans will be just whenever they are properly
enlightened, although no political advantage
can result therefrom to those active in procuring the passage of such
a measure. Since the equalization of the Jews, they have increased very
rapidly, especially in Baltimore; and at the present moment they are
engaged in erecting a new and larger place of worship, the former one
being found too small and inconvenient for the number of worshippers
that resorted thither.
We
refer to this subject at present merely to give our ideas concerning the
manner in which some Europeans endeavour to obtain political privileges.
We allude to the reform gentlemen, who have endeavoured to make it
appear that the new order of things attempted to be introduced by them
in the Synagogue will qualify those favouring it to more consideration
than the others, who adhere to the ancient order. As an evidence that we
do not do the persons in question any injustice, we will transcribe a
short passage from the Jewish Chronicle, a paper lately revived in
London, and supposed to be in the interest of the Burton Street
Synagogue:
“Since
the third reading of the bill* in the House of Peers, a deputation from
the West London Synagogue of British Jews, headed by Sir I. L.
Goldsmidt, has had an interview with Sir Robert Peel. We believe that
the object of the deputation was not to importune the minister to extend
the benefits of the present measure, but to place before him certain
facts connected with the advancement of British Jews in the several
branches of letters and science, in the different learned professions,
as well as in the improvement of the worship of the Synagogue, during
the last few years; and thus to induce him to originate, or to support
in the next session of Parliament, a bill for full and complete
emancipation. We know not the results of this interview, but we hear
that the gentlemen forming the deputation have every reason to be well
satisfied.”
So far the Chronicle. We however think that there are but
few among our readers who will otherwise than condemn the spirit which
this account betrays; and as a public journalist, one of the few who
have undertaken to speak for Israel, we must take this opportunity to
enter our solemn protest against such proceedings. Of course we assume
that there is no mistake in the statement that the deputation headed by
the distinguished financier did call on Sir Robert Peel, and deliver
themselves in the manner stated; and sorry should we be to be hereafter
convicted of having done any undeserved wrong to the gentlemen in
question. But to drop all farther preface, we say and maintain, that
such representations will do more, if they have any weight in certain
quarters, to retard Jewish emancipation, than the malevolent efforts of
our bitterest enemies. What is alleged by those called in Germany
“Judenfeinde” (enemies of the Jews)? Nothing more nor less than that
a Christian state ought not to grant privileges to Jews, not because
they are not honest and men,
but because they are unconverted Jews, and hence natural opponents to
Christianity. No matter how many phases and changes the discussion has
ever assumed, this manifestly lay at the bottom, that Jews are not
Christians, and that the Synagogue is not the Church. But it never
entered into the heads of the bigots who wield these arguments of the
old school, that both positions may be true, and yet it be but justice
in the state to let the Jews enjoy all the rights of man, and to let
Synagogues be erected unmolestedly for those who prefer to worship there
to visiting a church. They have shut their eyes to the fact, that in the
few countries where the Jews are fully free equally with the Christians,
the state has suffered no injury, though the Jews are not Christians and
the Synagogues are as far from being churches as ever.
Now see what say our own seceders—(we use the word
seceders in no invidious sense, and only mean by it those who have left
the old Synagogue forms for something of their own contrivance)—yes,
what do they say? They inform the Premier that the Jews of Britain have
lately made progress in the arts and sciences. This Sir Robert must have
been aware of without the deputation of our London friends: he knows
well enough of Arthur Lumley David, of Dr. Hyman Hurwitz, of Dr. M. J.
Raphall, of Rev. D. M. Isaacs, of Samuda, S. Hart, the Goldsmids, Sir M.
Montefiore, and many others, both living and dead, who are an honour to
the name of British Jews; of these, therefore, he could judge himself
whether others such as they were (for three of those named have gone to
their account) or are, ought to be entitled to the civil privileges now
denied them, or not. But we fancy that this information was not
requisite nor meant to be conveyed to the minister who now wields the
destinies of England; it was simply, however, to inform him of “the
improvement of the worship of the Synagogue during the last few years,
and thus to induce him to originate, or to support in the next
Parliament, a bill for full and complete emancipation.” But this
appeal is abhorrent not alone to all Jewish feelings, but to a common
sense view of the precious rights of conscience. We fear that with all
the great enlightenment of Europeans, they do not understand correctly
what true freedom is. For if we go upon the broad ground that every man
is at perfect liberty to judge for himself whether he will worship with
any particular church, or not at all;—let us be understood, we do not
defend irreligion; but as far as the state is concerned, it has no right
to inquire to what society a man belongs, or attach any political
disqualification to him if he belongs to none whatever. This dereliction
he must be accountable for to God only; in a purely civil relation, man
has no control over the enforcement of any religious act by his
fellow-creatures. So then, according to this view, the question of our
faith cannot be drawn into account at all upon simple abstract
principles. But if even we concede that the state may inquire about a
man’s creed, as was actually done in Great Britain until very lately
with dissenters of all kinds and Catholics, it appears extremely unwise
to inform Sir Robert of the reforms in the Synagogue, “thus to induce
him” to do something for the emancipation of the Jews. What is the
natural inference from this phrase? Simply that, as some Jews have
lately adopted some reforms, they are for this reason mainly entitled to
more civil privileges. Two errors are thus committed: first, the reforms
do not fit Jews more for equal rights than these were before they were
commenced; and secondly, the reform spoken of has as yet been
established in England only by a very small portion of Israelites. We
will admit that they are highly respectable, intelligent, and wealthy;
they form a community every way worthy of consideration; but still there
are others equally as trustworthy among the so-called orthodox party,
which, by the by far outnumbers them. So far therefore from the fact
propitiating Sir Robert, he might have told them that they represent but
a minority of Jews, and that was the greater portion refuse adopting the
new reforms, the whole body should therefore of right be excluded from
the desired privileges, because the reforms necessary to qualify them
have not been adopted. Absurd as such a position would be, we see no
other solution of the absurdity committed by the committee, always
assuming that the report is strictly according to fact.
But
this consideration of the case is not its most important bearing. It
proves how greatly we may be injured by party men and party measures.
Our opponents are only too ready to watch for any thing like a division
among us; and such a scene as that lately enacted at London will put
weapons most powerful into their hands; for they may say: “Your own
fellow-Israelites have admitted that under the ancient rules of the
Synagogue you are not worthy of public confidence.” It requires
however no great acumen to prove that this position is totally at
variance with the facts. We may freely challenge the world to prove how
the Synagogue can be in the least degree injurious to the state; and
this is, we contend, the only question which a wise government should
take into consideration. Were the Jews banded together, through the
permission obtained from their religious chiefs, for the purposes of any
immoral enterprise, or if any absolution had ever been granted to
malefactors upon the plea of Judaism, then would we say that there
existed a shadow of a reason to dispute our claims. But we come boldly
and say, We are men of Israel, true and faithful to our God, to our
religion; and we wish to be placed upon an equal footing with all other
citizens, in order faithfully to serve the state; and the same truth we
bring to our religion, we will bring to the service of our country; for
as a citizen or subject, the Jew has no separate interest from the
Christian, though as a religious person he cannot, and therefore does
not, acknowledge the truth of any dogmas and facts not consonant with
his belief:—It will be seen at once that this has nothing to do with
reform, or no reform; that is a question between ourselves, and with
which neither Sir Robert Peel, nor the Emperor of Russia, nor the King
of Denmark has of right the least concern; hence it was both impolitic
for themselves and unjust towards their many co-religionists, to urge
such a consideration upon the minister. If now the Jews of England
cannot obtain their just rights except by approaching in the least a
standard more agreeable to their Christian neighbours than ancient Judaism promises to be, we hope that they will have
independence enough to refuse such a boon, so grudgingly given, and
bestowed from such unworthy motives. An emancipation obtained by such
degrading concessions, would be the worst of slavery; for the mind would
in this manner have to debase itself in order to obtain a share of
political freedom; and where the mind is enslaved, external freedom is a
worthless bauble; and men thus emancipated will, by losing their
self-respect, prove practically at the first call of temptation that
they were unworthy of the liberty conferred on them. No, give us freedom
as ancient Jews, or leave us mere protection; and we state fearlessly
and openly, that whatever errors may be chargeable to old-fashioned
Jews, say even that they were bigoted and looked with distrust and
dislike upon Christians, it will be found upon investigation that all
these faults are clearly traceable to the unmitigated oppressions they
had to suffer every where; and that wherever the burdens have been
lightened, the feelings of Israelites have undergone a happy change; and
that were universal toleration once established for two or three
generations, all vestiges of prejudice on our part would be banished. In
this manner ought the deputation of British Jews to have spoken, and in
this wise only could they represent the wishes not alone of their
countrymen, but of Israelites all over the world, no matter where
living, whether in tyrannical Russia or in free America. |
