General Grant and the Jews

[Tez3]

http://www.aish.com/ci/s/Ulysses-S-Grant--the-Jews.html

This is an interesting story of an infamous act, the attitudes and the consquences.

 

[Touch Of Death]

It was all swept under the rug. He even won the Presidency afterward.
Sean

 

[Tez3]

However he bitterly regretted it and tried to make up for it when he was President.

 

[Touch Of Death]

He was always known for listening to the wrong voices, and was not the best President.
sean

 

[oftheherd1]

Never heard of this before. Interesting. Thanks for the link.

My first surmise would be that there were some unscrupulous traders who were jewish. Most commanders, as well as their troops, did not like those they considered unscrupulous traders, whether they were approved/mandated by higher-ups or not. It doesn't escuse the original act, but at least he acknowledged his error and made efforts to rectify it.

 

[elder999]

Jews and Catholics were not permitted to vote in most states until about 1820.

The Sundance and peyote ceremonies are still illegal in many states.

Santeria continues to be persecuted and often prosecuted for animal cruelly, or violation of health codes.

"Religious freedom," like so many other "Constitutional rigbts," is largely an illusion.

 

[oftheherd1]

Tez3, you picqued my curiosity so I googled "general grant and jews." There are several links, but I thought the below was interesting. It is found at http://www.history.com/news/general-grant-expels-jews-from-his-war-zone-150-years-ago.

Only about 15,000 Jews lived in the United States in 1840, but that number increased to around 150,000 by the time the Civil War started in 1861. An estimated 7,000 of those fought for the North and 3,000 fought for the South. Nonetheless, anti-Semitic attitudes persisted, even in the highest reaches of government. Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin was a particular target, with Senator (and future Vice President) Henry Wilson calling him of “that race that stoned prophets and crucified the redeemer of the world” and Senator (and future President) Andrew Johnson attacking him as “a sneaking, Jewish, unconscionable traitor.” Around the same time, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman wrote about “swarms” of Jewish speculators, and a federal law briefly limited regimental chaplains to regularly ordained Christian ministers. Anti-Jewish bigotry was also widespread in the South. Congressman Henry S. Foote, for example, absurdly alleged that Jews controlled nine-tenths of the Confederacy’s business interests and that by the end of the war southerners “would probably find nearly all the property of the Confederacy in the hands of Jewish shylocks.” Yet the Confederacy never issued any edicts on par with General Orders No. 11, which came as part of a crackdown on black-market trading in such things as cotton, weapons and gold. The vast majority of these smugglers weren’t Jewish – many were, in fact, army officers – but Jews began to face the brunt of the criticism.
One of these critics was General Ulysses S. Grant, who commanded the Union Army’s Department of the Tennessee, a war zone located in parts of four states. In November 1862, Grant signed a couple of discriminatory orders, one of which banned Jews from traveling southward on the railroad. Then, on December 17, Grant issued General Orders No. 11, which stated that “the Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department within 24 hours. Any one returning … will be arrested and held in confinement.”
By the end of the month, about 30 Jewish men and their families had been tossed out of Paducah, Kentucky. A baby was apparently almost left behind in the rush to make it to Cincinnati by riverboat. Jews were similarly expelled from Oxford, Jackson, Corinth and Holly Springs, Mississippi, including some forced to travel 40 miles to Memphis on foot. When a young couple in Holly Springs had their horse and buggy confiscated and were barred from changing out of wet clothes, the local authorities allegedly justified their actions by saying: “Because you are Jews, and are neither a benefit to the Union or Confederacy.”
Cesar Kaskel, a Jewish merchant who was a resident of Paducah, Kentucky decided to fight back against these affronts. He not only alerted the press to General Orders No. 11, but also dispatched a telegram to the White House complaining that this “inhuman order … would be the grossest violation of the Constitution and our rights” and would place us “as outlaws before the whole world.” When that failed to provoke an official response, Kaskel traveled to Washington, D.C., and, with the help of an Ohio congressman, gained an audience with President Abraham Lincoln. Immediately thereafter, on January 4, 1863, Lincoln’s general-in-chief of the Army revoked the order. In a follow-up meeting with Jewish leaders, Lincoln reportedly explained that “to condemn a class is, to say the least, to wrong the good with the bad.”

It would seem there was a lot of smuggling going on, and I would guess that was what set him off. Especially if his cabinet was running low and smuggling was increasing costs. :uhyeah:

 

[oftheherd1]

Never heard of this before. Interesting. Thanks for the link.

My first surmise would be that there were some unscrupulous traders who were jewish. Most commanders, as well as their troops, did not like those they considered unscrupulous traders, whether they were approved/mandated by higher-ups or not. It doesn't escuse the original act, but at least he acknowledged his error and made efforts to rectify it.

I just received a bad rep from another member over the above post. Looking at my post, perhaps my meaning was misunderstood.

I didn't mean that as a slam to jews in general, just because they were jews. However, given the times (not that there isn't modern discrimination as well unfortunately), if there were unscrupulous traders, and if some of them were jewish, what I meant was that they would have been easier to single out in some people's minds, and become easy targets. They would probably have been considered to have less local public or political influence to be protected by.

I in no way agree with General Grant's actions in the content or promulgation of his General Order, nor did I mean to justify them in any way. That action was wrong. Fortunately it was delt with fairly quickly given the communication of the times. Also, he also publicly recanted. That was good. It still doesn't excuse his having done it in the first place.

If that doesn't clear up what I meant, anyone who objects, please let me know. That can be in this thread or by another bad rep if anyone feels that strongly about it, or by PM. At least I can applaud the person for using their name. I appreciate that.

 

[Tez3]

Actually I understood what you meant, I'm not naive enough to believe we are all saints ( well I am obviously lol). It's likely that just being merchants could have set some off, if you add to the fact some traders were Jewish that could set others off. Traders are out to make a profit, customers are out for a bargain, it would be unusual if there wasn't a clash! However blaming the Jews for all the traders faults is unfair and far from unknown. I rather think that after the Jews were expelled the soldiers still had to pay through the nose from the remaining, non Jewish traders lol!
I tend to think that when Grant made the order he wasn't actually thinking about it, always a mistake not to think such things through but to his credit he did his best to atone and did realise why it was wrong. He could have waffled and justified it but didn't, it's a good thing to be able to admit to knowing when you are wrong and can actually say so.

 

[Xue Sheng]

One word

Grantism

 

[Tez3]

Would an 'ism' be as good as an 'ology'?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Would an 'ism' be as good as an 'ology'?

Nope

The Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant in the United States was marred by many scandals, including Black Friday, corruption in the Department of Interior, and the Whiskey Ring. The Crédit Mobilier, although exposed during the Grant Administration is not considered a Grant scandal. Although Grant was not directly involved with these scandals, his associations with persons of questionable character and his reliance on cronyism, nepotism, and political patronage gave rise to accusations of "Grantism."

 

[Tez3]

Well he was a politician!