In a remarkable episode from the Civil War that is not as widely known as it might be, General Ulysses S. Grant issued Order No. 11 on December 17, 1862 expelling all Jews from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, where his forces had taken the field.
Equally remarkable, President Lincoln did not say he would "stand by"
his generals or that "we must give the military the tools it needs" to accomplish its mission. Instead, he rescinded the Order.
A century-old account of General Grant's short-lived ban on Jews has recently been published online.
During the Civil War, President Lincoln repeatedly suspended habeas corpus and authorized other serious infringements on civil liberties.
But there are some things that are not done in America, it appears, even when the survival of the nation is at stake. This was one of them.
General Grant's action was not entirely irrational and prejudice-driven. An estimated 25,000 of the nation's 150,000 Jews lived in the South and were loyal to the Confederacy, according to a
2005 Library of Congress exhibition. And some Jewish merchants would "roam through the country contrary to government regulations," Grant complained.
"The President has no objection to your expelling traitors and Jew peddlers which I suppose was the object of your order," wrote Gen.
Henry Halleck to Gen. Grant, somewhat inelegantly. "But as it in terms proscribed an entire religious class, some of whom are fighting in our ranks, the President deems it necessary to revoke it."
The story received only cursory, two-sentence treatment in the preeminent Lincoln biography ("Lincoln") by David Herbert Donald, which mistakenly attributed Halleck's "Jew peddler" phrase to Grant (p. 409).
And Grant himself did not mention Order No. 11 in his Memoirs. He deliberately omitted it, his son explained in a 1907 letter, because "that was a matter long past and best not referred to."
To the contrary, however, this principled exercise of restraint by the President in time of war seems well worth remembering and pondering today, when basic civil liberties are again in dispute. (At his confirmation hearing today, Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey was unable or unwilling to categorically reject the possibility of indefinite detention of an American citizen without trial.)
The most detailed account of the origins and aftermath of General Grant's Order No. 11 expelling the Jews from the areas under his control seems to be a 1909 book entitled "Abraham Lincoln and the Jews," self-published by author Isaac Markens (pp. 10-17).
That book, long out of print, was recently digitized and published by Google Books and is now freely available here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-OxMjGRkFXwC&printsec=titlepage
In 1876, President Ulysses S. Grant was an honored guest at the dedication of Adas Israel, which is now the largest Conservative synagogue in Washington, DC.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 33
For some reason, though, we seem more willing to forgive ourselves. Wonder why that is. :-)
I find it curious that the words "even when the survival of the nation is at stake" be used in terms favoring the Civil War.
The "survival of the nation" was at stake, except it turns out that the nation did not survive; at least not how it was intended to be. The "nation" was supposed to be a confederation of sovereign states; not the massive, centralized nation-state that emerged from the Civil War.
The great "crime" committed by the Confederate States, was that they simply no longer wished to live under the rule of a federal government that was, even then, growing and usurping power. Not a century before that, those we honor as Founding Fathers had made the same decision, and took the same course of action; refusing to live under the rule of a despotic nation-state.
Secession, at any time and for any reason, should be the right of all states. It should not merit military invasion.
Abraham Lincoln is the Father of the Imperial Presidency. He embarked on a military campaign that took the lives of hundreds of thousands, all in the name of depriving states of their independent sovereignty, making sure that the South would remain available for plunder by the emerging corporatocracy of the North.
He repeatedly and shamelessly violated the natural rights of individuals, setting an ill-conceived precedent for succeeding Presidents who would fancy himself so Godlike as to have a right to "suspend" the equal rights of others.
Quite frankly, I would put Lincoln in my top three or four of the worst Presidents in our history, right next to FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and the ring leader of the current criminal enterprise occupying the White House.
Good-- that's heartening. Why should he categorically reject it ??
Abdullah al Muhajir AKA Jose Padilla is a prime example of why he shouldn't reject it.
When a US citizen, becomes an enemy of the state, and actively fights for the destruction of our nation, he is a traitor engaged in treason.
When he takes up a cause, unfettered by the control and agenda of a sovereign state, without a uniform or flag, he becomes an illegal enemy combatant as well.
This freely made choice, has consequences, one of which is that he becomes a man without a country, and therefore is no longer able to avail himself of the legal protections any other "soldier" representing a NATION enjoys.
Sorry, I have no sympathy for such a person, even if their nation of birth is the USA.
Does that mean I should not have sympathy for you if one of those terrible, awful, lefty politicians wins the presidential election, declares you an "enemy of the state", throws you in jail, and denies you the trial to which the Constitution say you are entitled.
Look, they don't just pick people randomly and thrown them into Gitmo, and if you think they do, then you need more help than most shrinks can offer.
They thrown them in a cage because that's where animals that seek to subvert the US government SHOULD BE, rather than being allowed to run amok and carry out their plans of violence and destruction.
Bush didn't just point a finger at some schmoe walking down the street. Abdullah al Muhajir AKA Jose Padilla was declared an illegal enemy combatant FOR A REASON ! ! ! !
So yes, if it actually happened to me, it would HAPPEN FOR A REASON, and you should no longer have any sympathy for me.
I know you won't like that answer, but-- hard cheese.
its a good thing that wasn't the law when Ronald Reagan was running for office!
Federation of American Scientists --
Please, by all means, make your short story longer!
Where did I revise history?
Warrantless Wiretaps: A Long History of Legality
When you are near being in charge of this country please let me know, will you? I'll be wanting a one way ticket to somewhere else when sanity can still be expected.
I guess you don't know that some declared illegal enemy combatants were picked up on the street and turned in for a bounty.
Your revisionist characteristics are found in the fact that Lincoln was trying to preserve the republic, not trying to overthrow states rights. That has to some extent occurred as a result of the Civil War, I'll admit. Lincoln originally didn't think he could free the slaves because of states rights. He changed his mind on this.
It was Lincoln's intention to bring the family of southern states fully back into the republic and that they should never be punished for having tried to secede. Stanton was one of the big players who disagreed with that stance.
Whether you like the result of not, the Union did succeed and the nation was held together, at great expense. Had the secession been successful, each of the southern states would have been at the mercy of any other country and would not likely have survived in the long run.
It was the Civil War that changed the common terminology from "these United States" to "the United States." And since that time various congresses and administrations have chosen to remove as much power from the states as possible. Carter, Regan and Bush come to mind here as they implemented, through funding hold-backs, to force the states to implement what the federal could not. Very wrong!
But the central federal government is still obliged to the Constitution as is every state in our nation. A nation that would not exist except for Abraham Lincoln.
Any students of the revolutionary war out there? One of the key items on list of colonial particulars against King George was the illegal search and seizure of colonialists - - then, citiziens of Brittain.
The War of 1812 was fought for a number of reasons, one being the impressment of american civilian sailors by both the french and brittish -- we actually couldn't quite determine whom we despised most for this practice until formal declaration of war against the english.
As millions of our personal electronic records are read and communications providers seek immunity from prosecution and a host of other questionable invasions of our collective civil liberties- - the one thing that still sets us apart from "them" is the rule of law. We have grand juries, police, prosecuters, judges and special courts created to handle just such things. Protecting ourselves, while protecting american values and respect for individuals rights is what this country is all about. Blind trust in any chief executive is oxymoronic and is why the US was formed with the various checks and balences and the ability to impeach the "king" (without having to recourse a violent overthrow the government).
I say again: How can you, or anyone, dispute the natural right of the Southern States to do exactly what the American colonies did not a hundred years prior?
Whether or not the Confederacy would have survived apart from the glorious "protection" of the North is debatable, but not pertinent to the fundamental point, which is the natural, God-given right of any sovereign state, at any time and for any reason, proclaim: "WE DO NOT WANT TO LIVE UNDER YOUR RULE ANY LONGER!"
If you want to talk about "revisionist history," then by all means, lets.
How about the popular notions that the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery, or even that Lincoln himself was some kind of enlightened warrior for the rights of blacks.
The relative unimportance of slavery as a cause for war was made clear by Lincoln himself in his first inaugural address:
"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of the Republican administration their property and their peace and their personal security are to be endangered...
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1859--1865 Don E. Fehrenbacher p.215)
Lincoln confirmed this stand even AFTER the outbreak of the war:
"My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not to either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; aand if I could save it by freeing all of the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." (Lincoln: His Words and His World edited by Robert L. Polley p.54)
Perhaps Lincoln's relative indifference to the issue of slavery had something to do with the fact that he was a white supremacist. In his fourth debate with Senator Stephen Douglas, he stated rather bluntly:
"I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermary with white people; and I will saya in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." (Speeches and Writings, p. 636)
There is your wonderful Abe Lincoln, champion of human rights, warrior for equality.
The Civil War was about economics; plain and simple.
From G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island, Chapter 18 "Loaves and Fishes and Civil War," p. 372:
Legal plunder, not slavery, the cause of war.
The South, being predominately an agricultural region, had to import practically all of its manufactured goods from the Northern states of from Europe, both of which reciprocated by providing a market for the South's cotton. However, many of the textiles and manufactured items were considerbly cheaper from Europe, even after the cost of shipping had been added. The Southern states, therefore, often found it to their advantage to purchase these European goods rather than those made in the North. This put considerable competitive pressure on American manufacturers to lower their prices and operate more efficiently.
The Republicans were not satisfied with that arrangement. They decided to use the power of the federal government to tip the scales of competition in their favor. Claiming that this was in the "national interest," they levied stiff import duties on almost every item coming from Europe that was also manufactured in the North. Not surprisingly, there was no duty applied to cotton which, presumedly, was not a commodity in the national interest. One result was that European countries countered by stopping the purchase of U.S. cotton, which badly hurt the Southern economy. The other result was that manufacturers in the North were able to charge higher prices without fear of competition, and the South was forced to pay more for practically all of its necessities. It was a classic case of legalized plunder in which the law was used to enrich one group of citizens at the expense of another.
Pressure from the North against slavery in the South made matters even more volatile. a fact often overlooked in this episode is that the cost of a slave was very high, around $1,500 each. A modest plantation with only forty or fifty slaves, therefore, had a large capitala investment which, in terms of today's purchasing power, represented many millions of dollars. To the South, therefore, abolition meant, not only the loss of its ability to produce a cash crop, but the total destruction of an enormous captial base.
Many Southern Plantation owners were working towards the day when they could convert their investment to more profitable industrial production as had been done in the North, aand others felt that freemen who were paid wages would be more efficient than slaves who had no incentive to work. For the present, however, they were stuck with the syetm they inherited. They felt that a complete and sudden abolition of slavery with no transition period would destroy their economy and leave many of the former slaves to starve -- all of which actually happened in due course.
That was the situation that existed at the time of Lincoln's campaign and why, in his speeches, he attempted to calm the fears of the South about his intentions. But his words were mostly political rhetoric. Lincoln was a Republican, and he was totally dependent on the Northern industrialists who controlled the Party. Even if he had wanted to -- and there is no indication that he did -- he could not have revered the trend of economic favoritism and protectionism that swept him into office.
I said no such thing, how silly.
The Geneva convention rules should apply
No, they should not. The Geneva Convention rules ALSO DEFINE what a "soldier" is, and the terrorists do NOT qualify as soliders under this document.
The right to Habeas Corpus applies to all United States Citizens.
Wrong again, there are no protections whatsoever for a man without a country, and this is PRECISELY why they are NOTHING MORE than illegal enemy combatants.
Thanks for the rather lengthy commentary about Lincoln. I agree with all of that. His greatness was not in freeing the slaves but rather, in holding a relatively new and undeveloped nation together! Not a word you wrote was anything I was not already well aware of and I suspicion that most of the posters her are also. But for my money, Abraham Lincoln was a great president because he did what was necessary to hold onto the Union to pass on the future generations.
A lot of what has been taught in schools about Lincoln is not worthy of the man. And he made a great many mistakes, as in his selection of several generals. but when it came to compassion and perseverance, he was a great man.
Appreciate the comments but a United States Citizen, which I referenced, is always entitled to Habeas Corpus. You are talking about "a man without a country" and "illegal enemy combatants" and those are a different matter than I referenced. A citizen is presumed innocent until he has been through a trial and if he is a citizen that is one of his guaranteed rights by our constitution.
If, however, you think like the shrub and that the Constitution is just a two hundred year old piece of paper with no real validity today, of course that becomes another matter. I'll stick with the Constitution on this.
As far as the Geneva convention and who it applies to, one can make arguments to remove all protections of any kind but I believe America is a better and greater country than would do that. We don't have to stoop that low!
I am speaking of Abdullah al Muhajir--- in fact, a USA citizen, until of course he took up arms against the USA, at which point he became an illegal enemy combatant.
Scumbags like Abdullah al Muhajir, whether they were ONCE a citizen or not, effectively denounce their citizenship with their treasonous behavior/actions. He is a man without a country.
This standard/belief does not impact the Constitution at all.
Go read the Geneva Convention, and find the pertinent part of it that DEFINES what a "soldier" is--- you'll see very quickly terrorists are not included.
A soldier requires a sovereign nation to fight for, a soldier requires ORDERS from the head of the sovereign nation he represents. This representation REQUIRES a flag to march under, and a uniform to march in.
As you can see, this isn't a terrorist.
The fact is, the Colonialists DECLARED THEMSELVES A NATION--- have the Islamist terrorists done that ??? No, they haven't. Have the Islamist terrorists even attempted to make a flag that would represent their cause ??? No, they haven't. Do they even bother to make a uniform??? No, their ENTIRE MO is to meld in, hide in plain sight, among the civilians.
As you can see, your response isn't very well thought out.
And by the way, that isn't MY definition, it is the definition found in the Geneva Convention pal.
I'll agree that the revolutionary army were "insurgents" for sure. However, it was some time before they had a flag. Of course, you are making the case for the insurgents in Iraq, too poor to afford uniforms and I'm sure they could come up with a flag somewhere. Osama has "declared" that a Muslim nation and wants the United States out! He claims the entire Mideast area for the Muslim nation! I don't recognize it and none of the existing nations do either but if one can simply "declare" it, they can handle that!
The language of the Geneva convention actually requires a flag? L I B!
But you are dancing right over the real basis for my statements. That is, the United States of America is a better nation than that and doesn't have to stoop to such tactics!
And terrorists who win are no longer terrorists in the eyes of the world. Look at Israel. Menachem Begin, by his own statement, was a terrorist. But success "cleaned him up" just great.
Thanks jJack!
You miss the point ENTIRELY--- anyone can raise a flag, but unless the flag REPRESENTS A SOVEREIGN NATION, it is little more than a banner.
Osama has "declared" that a Muslim nation and wants the United States out!
So what ??? Osama doesn't lead a sovereign nation, and hasn't been elected by anyone, and he certainly doesn't rule any nation by force.
He claims the entire Mideast area for the Muslim nation!
Again, so what ??? These are the "claims" of a madman. I could claim myself G-d, but it would merely be the ramblings of a madman.
The language of the Geneva convention actually requires a flag?
Yes it does, in the definition of what a "soldier" is, and isn't.
But you are dancing right over the real basis for my statements. That is, the United States of America is a better nation than that and doesn't have to stoop to such tactics!
This is merely your own idealistic viewpoint, and NOTHING in the history of ANY nation suggests anything is "out of bounds" as it pertains to national SURVIVAL.
And terrorists who win are no longer terrorists in the eyes of the world.
True enough, but the terrorists HAVEN'T won, and DON'T have a nation they can call their own.
Look at Israel. Menachem Begin, by his own statement, was a terrorist. But success "cleaned him up" just great.
And the day terrorists have had a nation of their own for fifty or so years, they'll be able to make the same claim.
This is what we now fight to prevent.
Article IV, Section A, 1 and 2
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
No terrorist fits the definition of a "soldier" as defined by these qualifiers, all of which must be true, before one is defined as a "soldier" by the Geneva Convention.
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
This is the "flag" part of the Convention I spoke of.
Well, that's highly debatable, however since I'm tired of seeing your face, I'll leave it alone. *dripping with sarcasm* Just in case, isn't that what you said ?? *G*
http://www.tributespaid.com/quotes-on/abraham-lincoln
Interesting to see the revisionist history attempts.
But,...it ia also one of the most interesting topics, also.
I wonder,...Do they have classes in, "Revisionist History 101"???