SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Neocon who wrote (16572)6/13/2001 10:18:33 AM
From: gao seng  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
An interesting book review:

Tuesday, 12 June 2001 20:35 (ET)

Civilization: 'The Jewish Confederates'
By LOU MARANO

WASHINGTON, June 12 (UPI) -- History is full of surprises for those who
are open to them. One way to stay open is to shed the notion that the recent
past is a good indicator of the more distant past.

It's agreed that the Civil War changed America like nothing else.
Nevertheless, many falsely assume that the antebellum South was like the
post-Reconstruction South, only more so.

"The Jewish Confederates" (University of South Carolina Press, 517 pages,
$39.95), by Robert N. Rosen, parts that cloud to give a clear look at
vanished world.

Rosen, a Charleston, S.C., attorney, discussed his book Sunday before an
audience at The National Museum of American Jewish Military History in
Washington. The author, who holds an MA in history from Harvard, admitted
that he enjoys smashing stereotypes.

"I love pricking the balloon of political correctness," he said. "Not
being an academic, I can tell the truth."

The Jewish people have forgotten that the Jews of the Old South had
complete religious freedom and, unlike in the North, were accepted, Rosen
said. Most Jewish families in the South had come from the German-speaking
areas of Europe. For them, Dixie "was the Land of Canaan, true Palestine."

They accepted dueling and the southern code of honor. Slavery presented no
particular problem because of the biblical precedent. A few Jews owned
slaves, Rosen said, but not as many as those free blacks owned. In
Charleston, for example, free blacks owned three times the number of slaves
owned by the Jews of that city.

The first three Jewish U.S. senators were from the South. Foremost among
them was Judah P. Benjamin of New Orleans. Although Benjamin personally
thought secession would be a disaster, he came to be known as "the brains of
the Confederacy." The Louisianan held three posts in Jefferson Davis'
cabinet: attorney general, secretary of war and secretary of state.

"Benjamin was third in line for the (Confederate) presidency," Rosen said.
"He has no counterpart in the Union."

Southern Jews had no use for New England abolitionists, Rosen said,
calling John Quincy Adams "despicable" for his anti-Semitic utterances and
William Lloyd Garrison a virulent anti-Semite who also hated Catholics.

The abolitionists considered themselves modern and free from superstition,
Rosen said. But southerners, he wrote in his book, "believed fervently in
the God of the Old Testament and respected their Jewish neighbors' knowledge
of the Bible. The learned Jew of a small Southern town often settled
theological disputes among Christians."

Further, southerners saw the Jewish people of ancient times as noble and
heroic. In fact, when the war came, one heroic Jewish widow went so far as
to suggest that her Christian friends suspend for the duration their
religion of love and mercy to embrace the Old Testament God of retribution.

As manager of the huge military hospital in Richmond, Phoebe Yates Pember
saw war's horrors firsthand. In a letter to her sister Eugenia, who had been
banished to an island in the Mississippi River for her defiance of the
Federal occupiers of New Orleans, Pember told of an evening among a
particularly pious set of Yankee-haters.

"At last I lifted my voice and congratulated myself at being born of a
nation, and religion that did not enjoin forgiveness on its enemies, that
enjoyed the blessed privilege of praying for an eye for an eye, and a life
for a life, and was not one of those for whom Christ died in vain,
considering the present state of feelings. I proposed that till the war was
over they should all join the Jewish Church, let forgiveness and peace and
good will alone and put their trust in the sword of the Lord and Gideon."

Jews in the antebellum South "had experienced a freedom unknown to Jews
anywhere else in the world," Rosen wrote, and were more accepted as Jews
than at any other time since "the Golden Age of Jewry in medieval Spain."
They were intensely grateful and accepted their responsibilities when war
came.

"Why would they not fight for their homeland like all the others?" Rosen
asked Sunday. "The truth is the South was invaded." Jews fought for their
freedom and way of life, he said. And, like other Confederates, they were "a
people who wished to be left alone."

As do all responsible historians, Rosen sees slavery as the root cause of
secession, which was the proximate cause of the war. He also acknowledges
that all whites had a stake in the racial caste system. But he resists the
revisionist assertion that the typical Confederate soldier fought mainly to
preserve the peculiar institution.

At the Jewish Military History Museum, Rosen cited the example of Gustavus
Poznanski, son of a Charleston rabbi. When the war broke out, Poznanski
sailed from Canada to join his comrades in defense of his native city and
was killed at age 19.

"To say that this man died for slavery is an absolute lie," Rosen said.

The South continued to be a comfortable home for Jews as long as it was
run by "hierarchical liberal aristocrats" Rosen said. "In the hall of
Righteous Gentiles, Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis deserve a place."

But things changed after the Civil War with the eclipse of the
philo-Semitic elite. By the end of the 19th century and in the early 20th
century, demagogues such as Tom Watson and "Pitchfork" Ben Tilman preached
emotional anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish populism.

"The Jewish Confederates" is an eye-opener for all readers and a must for
any serious student of the period.



To: Neocon who wrote (16572)6/14/2001 1:51:07 PM
From: Win Smith  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
On the subject of "revisionist history", I went and got Ellis's Jefferson biography, "American Sphinx" out of the library. Only read the first chapter, but it's rather odd. I had the impression that Ellis was sort of revisionist, having grown up with rather orthodox deification of Jefferson. It turns out that, by his account, he's sort of counter-revisionist. This was before the DNA tests came in, though. Of course, the history I grew up with was still heavily inflected with the "Birth of a Nation" post-reconstruction Southern view, which was exceedingly bogus and heavily in need of revision. The revision was, I think, actually fairly far along in the '60's, but it hadn't quite made it down to the Catholic school history book level. Given that the Ku Klux Klan was also virulently anti-Catholic, I don't quite understand how the "Birth of a Nation" version made it into those textbooks in the first place, but that's life.

Anyway, the article that was the basis for the first chapter of Ellis's book is on line, at memory.loc.gov . A couple bits:

The admiration for Jefferson was as much a psychological as a political phenomenon. In the hands of a poet like Salter or a novelist like Byrd, Jefferson became not Everyman but Postmodern Man, a series of overlapping and interacting personae that talked to us but not to each other. He could walk past the slave quarters on Mulberry Row at Monticello without qualms or guilt while daydreaming about the rights of man with utter sincerity. He could purchase the finest and most expensive art and furniture for his many residences, all the while idealizing the pastoral virtues of the sturdy farmer. He could fall in love with beautiful women in fits of rhapsodic passion but never allow the deepest secrets of his soul to be shared with any living creature. He was, like us, layered and conflicted but, as we wish to be, always in control, the perfect model for his beloved ideal of "self-government." . . .

In the end, however, my thoughts returned to the faces of those ordinary Americans who had gathered at Worcester to celebrate Jefferson as their favorite Founding Father. They had absolutely no interest in deconstructing Jefferson or worshiping the disassembled parts of some engagingly incoherent hero. They were somewhat vulnerable, I suspect, to criticism of their idol as a racist. If the mounting scholarly case against Jefferson did filter down to the broader populace, it could do damage. But it seems clear to me that the deep reservoir of instinctive affection for Jefferson will probably remain intact. In its own way, the apparently unconditional love for Jefferson is every bit as mysterious as the enigmatic character of the man himself. Like a splendid sunset or a woman's beauty, it is simply there. It is the ultimate energy source for the Jeffersonian Surge.

Grass-roots Jeffersonianism, what we might also call Jeffersonian fundamentalism, has a long history of its own, but for our purposes its most instructive feature is the change in its character over the past 50 years. For most of American history, Jefferson was cast in the lead role in the dramatic clash between democracy and aristocracy, with Alexander Hamilton usually playing the opposite lead. If this dramatic formulation often had the suspicious odor of a soap opera, it also had the decided advantage of fitting neatly into the mainstream political categories and parties: It was the people against the interests, agrarians against the industrialists, the West against the East, Democrats against Republicans. Jefferson was one-half the American political dialogue, the liberal voice of "the many" holding forth against the conservative voice of "the few."

This version of American history always had the semifictional quality of an imposed plot line, but it stopped making much sense at all by the New Deal era, when Franklin Roosevelt invoked Hamiltonian methods (i.e., government intervention) to achieve Jeffersonians goals (i.e., economic equality). After the New Deal, most historians abandoned the Jefferson-Hamilton distinction altogether and most politicians stopped yearning for a Jeffersonian utopia free of all government influence. The disintegration of the old categories meant the demise of Jefferson as the symbolic leader of liberal partisans fighting valiantly against the entrenched interests. In a sense, what happened was that Jefferson ceased to function as the liberal half of the American political dialogue and became instead the presiding presence who stood above all political conflicts and parties.

And this, of course, is where he resides today, a kind of free-floating icon who hovers over the American political scene much like one of those dirigibles cruising above the Super Bowl, flashing words of encouragement to both teams. Formerly the property of liberal crusaders, he is now claimed by Democrats and Republicans alike. In fact, the most effective articulator of Jeffersonian rhetoric in the last half of the 20th century has been Ronald Reagan, the most conservative president since Calvin Coolidge, whose belief in less government, individual freedoms and American destiny came straight out of the
lexicon. Jefferson is not just an essential ingredient in the American political tradition, but the essence itself.