Immigrant Origins and Sponsor Policies: Sources of Change in South Jersey Jewish ColoniesAuthor(s): Ellen EisenbergReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of American Ethnic History, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Spring, 1992), pp. 27-40Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Immigration & Ethnic History SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27500957 .Accessed: 06/02/2012 17:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
University of Illinois Press and Immigration & Ethnic History Society are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of American Ethnic History.
http://www.jstor.org
Immigrant Origins and Sponsor Policies:
Sources of Change in South Jersey Jewish Colonies
ELLEN EISENBERG
THE OVERWHELMING concentration of Jews in urban areas and in
dustrial occupations in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century America obscures the small but significant movement to settle Jews in
agricultural colonies during this period of mass migration. The same
wave of migration which included the industrial and craft workers who
came to dominate the garment industry in cities such as New York,
brought a contingent of Jews seeking to live communally and to become
productive through agricultural labor. Believing that the exclusion of
Jews from "productive" occupations such as farming was the root of the
"Jewish problem," these Eastern European Jewish migrants established
approximately forty agricultural colonies in the United States between
1881 and 1890.1
The largest and longest lasting of these colonies were located in
southern New Jersey's Salem and Cumberland counties.2 Within the first
decade after their establishment, these colonies evolved from coopera tive agrarian settlements into mixed agricultural-industrial communities
with economies based on private ownership. After a brief review of the
background conditions that led to the founding of these colonies, the
roots of this transformation will be traced to the effects of both sponsor
policies and the changing origins of immigrant cohorts over time.
The American Jewish colonies were a product of the circumstances of
Jewish life in the southern Pale of Jewish Settlement in Russia, and
more particularly in Odessa. It was in that city that the Am Olam move
ment, aimed at establishing agricultural colonies in the United States, was founded. The south Pale was a unique part of the Pale of Settlement
in which Jews were required to live, and its distinctiveness allowed for
the emergence of a group of Russified Jews, who were products of the
Jewish Enlightenment and sympathetic to agrarian ideologies. Most of the Pale was made up of regions where Jews had long re
sided, most notably Lithuania and White Russia (collectively the north
west Pale) and parts of Poland. In contrast, the south Pale had been
28 Journal of American Ethnic History / Spring 1992
opened to Jewish settlement in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries. As an area in which Jews had settled only during the 100
years prior to emigration, the south was an area of new Jewish settle
ment. The newness of the Jewish community in this area made its insti
tutions less bounded by tradition, particularly in cities such as Odessa.
In addition, Jewish population density was lower in the south than in the
rest of the Pale; Jews were permitted (and even encouraged) at various
times to settle in rural districts and to farm in the south; and the commu
nity there was less insular than in other regions, with Jews taking advan
tage of Russian gymnasia and universities, and with a far greater number
of Jews fluent in Russian. Jewish workers in the south tended to be
merchants, rather than the craft and pre-industrial workers which domi
nated the northwest. As merchants, often trading in agricultural goods,
they were more likely to have contact with peasant populations.3 The distinctiveness of this southern region increased the receptivity of
Jews in that region to both Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah) thought and
to Russian populism. Odessa had been one of the centers of the Haskalah, a movement that stressed modernization of Jewish religious practice,
education, and occupational structure as a means to achieving "normal
ization," eliminating anti-Semitism, and earning citizenship. The high level of opportunity for Jews in Odessa made such ideas more relevant
to Jewish life there than elsewhere. Similarly, because they were able to
interact with Russians more than were Jews in other areas, intellectuals
in this area were likely to be aware of Russian radical ideas such as
populism. While farming experience was uncommon among Jews from
these southern provinces, the percentage of Jewish farmers was several
times greater than in other regions, a fact which helped to increase
interest in agrarian ideologies.4 The high level of Russification, the increased contact with non-Jew
ish populations, and the popularity of Jewish Enlightenment thought
among intellectuals, combined with the concentration of pogroms in the
south Pale to create the conditions necessary for the emergence of the
Am Olam in this region. The movement, founded in 1881 in Odessa,
merged the emphasis of the Haskalah on economic normalization with
populist agrarian philosophies. Thus, the three founders of the Am Olam,
Monye Bokal, Sidney Baily, and Moses Herder were all products of the
Odessan Haskalah, had all severed their ties with their traditional up
bringings, and were all drawn to Russian populist ideologies. The affinity of these Am Olam founders and their peers for Russian culture and Rus
sian radical thought made their betrayal by both peasants and Russian
Eisenberg 29
intellectuals in the 1881 anti-Jewish pogroms particularly damaging. In
forming the Am Olam after this tragedy, these individuals were able to
redirect their revolutionary energy away from the Russian peasantry and
toward their own people. Still believing in the value of agricultural
labor, these intellectuals decided, in essence, to make of themselves a
Jewish peasantry which would be "normalized" through productive labor
on the land.5
The Am Olam focused its efforts on colonization in America. Colo
nies were established in the American West and Deep South which were
connected to or inspired by the movement. In these settlements, few of
which survived for even five years, colony design varied according to
the composition of the settlement's population and the degree of in
volvement of outside sponsors. Where colonies included both Am Olam
adherents and nonmembers, or where supervision by established Jewish
financial sponsors was tight, colonies developed economic systems based on private ownership. In colonies dominated by Am Olam members and
that remained independent from sponsors, economic systems that were
cooperative, if not communal, developed. For example, in Bethlehem
Judea Colony in South Dakota, settlers, who were all Am Olam members, shared all work and all property communally. They hoped to make
themselves productive through farming, and all members of the commu
nity were required to farm.6 Similarly, in New Odessa Colony, formed
in Oregon by members of Odessa Am Olam, colonists lived communally and much energy was devoted to debates on philosophy. Members of
the colony scorned traditional Jewish practice, and observed neither the
Jewish holidays nor the Sabbath.7 In contrast, the Sicily Island, Louisi
ana, and Cremieux, South Dakota, colonies, which had mixed constitu
encies, developed mixed economies that combined cooperation with pri vate ownership.8 Similarly, in the Beersheba Colony in Kansas, which
was strictly supervised by the established Cincinnati Jewish community and in which only a few members had Am Olam connections, the struc
ture of the colony was based on private ownership. The most successful attempts at Jewish colonization in this country,
indeed the only colonies to persist for more than a decade, were located in southern New Jersey. Established with an initial population of ap
proximately 25 families in 1882, Alliance, which within a decade ex
panded to form Norma and Brotmanville as well, included 187 families with a total population of nearly 1000 inhabitants by 1908. In the same
period, Carmel Colony grew from 17 to 144 families, and Rosenhayn from 6 or 7 to 98 families. In 1908 the population for the three settle
30 Journal of American Ethnic History / Spring 1992
ments totaled over 2200. All of these communities continued intact
through the 1920s, and were replenished by Jewish refugees in the 1930s
and 1940s.9
During the initial period of settlement of Alliance and Carmel, colo
nists appeared to be replicating the communal blueprint that guided the
western Am Olam settlements. In Alliance, colonists lived and dined
communally, and for the first six months they worked together to clear
the virgin land. But by the Fall of 1882, land was divided into plots and
distributed in clusters of four, to groups of families who were to work
their own plots but share horses and implements.10 Even this was aban
doned within a year, and, by the Fall of 1883 the pattern of single family
farming, supplemented by winter factory work, was established.
While land was divided into plots even earlier in Carmel, many coop erative ventures were undertaken in the 1880s. In several cases groups of colonists purchased land together, and eight families established a
cooperative farm in 1889.u In the same year an "Industrial Co-operation in Combination with Consumer Patrons" was organized in Carmel "for
the purpose of conducting farm-work on cooperative principles, com
bining [agricultural labor] with other manufacturing industries."12 Both
settlements, and a third, Rosenhayn, which was revived in 1887 after an
earlier failure, increasingly became in the late 1880s and early 1890s
noncommunal, noncooperative, and nonideological mixed agricultural and industrial settlements, based on private ownership.
The reason for this rapid transition can be traced, ironically, to the
primary factor contributing to the colonies' longevity: location. Because
of their remote locations, the exclusively Am Olam settlements of New
Odessa and Bethlehem Judea remained isolated from outside influences
during their brief lives, and their programs and constituencies remained
largely consistent throughout their existence. In contrast, the South Jer
sey colonies were conveniently located near large Jewish population centers. In fact, the Alliance Colony site was chosen precisely because it
was located on the New Jersey Central rail line, about 50 miles from
Philadelphia and 100 miles from New York.13 The proximity to these
cities and the availability of rail transportation provided the farmers
with easy access to markets for their produce, and to financial sponsors within the established Jewish philanthropic organizations. In addition, the location made the colonies a more attractive destination for new
settlers who wanted to escape the city but did not share the Am Olam
ideals.
While their proximity to New York and Philadelphia philanthropists
Eisenberg 31
yielded tremendous benefits for the colonies in terms of monetary sup
port, this support was not unconditional. Sponsors supervised the colo
nies closely and shaped their development in accordance with their own
goals for the settlements. A variety of sponsors aided the colonies in the
early years. These groups, including the French Alliance Israelite
Universelle, the English Mansion House, and the American Hebrew
Emigrant Aid Society (HEAS), were closely allied and shared a conser
vative, capitalistic outlook. Thus, from the outset, HEAS placed an on
site supervisor at Alliance to oversee the colony's daily affairs. The
supervisor stressed that HEAS regarded the early organization of com
munal living and working as an intermediate step in the effort to estab
lish individual farmers on single-family plots.14 Only in the case of
Carmel, and there only briefly, aid was provided by a more liberal Jew, Michael Heilprin, who shared both Eastern European descent and an
intellectual outlook with the colonists. Heilprin's support in the early
years of Carmel fostered the development of the cooperatives, but his
death in 1888 left Carmel to the supervision of more conservative spon sors.15 By 1891, sponsorship of all of these colonies was consolidated
under the Baron de Hirsch Fund.
With the exception of Heilprin, the sponsors were primarily estab
lished German-Jewish businessmen who regarded the Eastern European Jewish immigrants as uncivilized and foreign. As American Jews of
German descent, they had brought with them from Germany a strong
prejudice against Eastern European Jews, or Ostjuden, whom they iden
tified as "dirty, loud, coarse . . . immoral, culturally backward."16 In
America, as in Germany, the established Jewish community attempted to accentuate its patriotism and minimize its foreignness by emphasizing the acculturation and modernness evident in its Reform Jewish temples.
American Reform Jews went so far as to explicitly deny their nation
hood, defining themselves as a religion stressing universal humanistic
values which they held in common with Christians.17
While this pride in the progressiveness of the American Reform
movement was community-wide, it was particularly apparent among the
elite of the New York Jewish community, dubbed "Our Crowd." This
group of wealthy Jews, including the Schiffs, the Seligmans, the Loebs, the Straus's and the Lewisohns, who became the core leadership group in the face of the refugee crisis and who served as trustees of organiza tions like the Baron de Hirsch Fund, prided themselves on their accul
turation and spectacular success in America. Their temple, Emanu-El, was the symbol of these achievements, "hailed by the New York Times as
32 Journal of American Ethnic History / Spring 1992
one of the leading congregations of the world, 'the first to stand forward
before the world and proclaim the dominion of reason over blind and
bigoted faith.'"18
Given this pride in their own triumph over traditionalism and their
successful Americanization, it is not surprising that these American Jews
looked at the refugees with disdain. Even before the mass migration
began, organizations like the B'nai B'rith and the Young Men's Hebrew
Association excluded Eastern European Jews from their ranks.19 As they
began to understand the potential magnitude of the immigration, Ameri
can Jews expressed concern that the newcomers would overwhelm them.
They feared that the increasing concentration of immigrants in the urban
ghettos would spark anti-Semitism ?particularly because of the per ceived backwardness of the new arrivals. Hoping that the establishment
of rural colonies would draw immigrant Jews out of the cities, they saw
such colonies as a key component of their plan to manage the influx.20
While the sheer number and the pitiful condition of the refugees created such a demand for funds that large-scale colonization plans could never be implemented, American Jewish leaders felt that colonies
could still play a role in siphoning off some of the excess. Once in the
colonies, sponsors believed, immigrants would more rapidly adopt American ways, for they would be surrounded by Americans rather than
by other immigrants. This Americanization was a central goal for the
sponsors, for elimination of the foreignness of the immigrants would,
they felt, mute anti-Semitism. An implicit part of the Americanization
the sponsors advocated was the acceptance of the ideas of self-reliance
and independence. Thus, they emphasized the value of financial inde
pendence, whether in the form of farm or home ownership. Sponsors, influenced both by American philanthropic theory and, in many cases, their own rags-to-riches experience, argued that such holdings must be
earned, and scorned charity as debilitating, believing that it bred depen dence. Similarly, they saw socialism and other challenges to the ideal of
the independent, individual American entrepreneur as threatening.21 Thus, while the sponsors' aid was essential to the survival of the colonies, their policies were not neutral but served to shape the settlements into
communities based on individual ownership rather than communalism. In order to implement their goals, sponsors set up their philanthropic
organizations not as charities, but as organizations of investors. Baron
de Hirsch, the European capitalist who provided the major financial
support for three of the primary funding agencies, instructed that projects were to be evaluated "from a financial point of view, from a business
Eisenberg 33
and not from a philanthropic standpoint, just as if it were a question of a
new railroad or any other project destined to repay the capital invested."22
As the sponsoring agencies were consolidated in the early 1890s, they demonstrated the prevailing bias in nineteenth-century America against
charity. Their policies were designed to foster independence among the
colonists, and they stressed that all interaction with clients was to be
based on business principles. The sponsors' actions toward the colonists were designed with their
goals of Americanization and independence in mind. Loans were the
primary method of operation, with the major funders preferring to offer
only second mortgages to farmers who were able to settle and obtain
their first loans independently. Only aspiring farmers with their own
capital to invest were considered for loans. These farm loans were of
fered on an individual basis to family farmers, which made communal
organization of farming difficult. While colonists had often been delin
quent in paying early loans ?frequently failing to understand that monies
provided were loans and not gifts23 ? the Baron de Hirsch fund and its
subsidiary the Jewish Agriculture and Industrial Aid Society (JAIAS) forced colonists to move toward independence by demanding prompt
payments. Foreclosures were not rare.24 Even in extreme circumstances,
charity cases were refused because of the sponsors' insistence on self
help and independence. For example, when Mrs. Eli Stavitsky, one of
the original Alliance settlers, appealed for aid after her husband's sudden
death during an epidemic in 1907, her request was denied, and she was
forced as a result to place three of her five children in a Philadelphia
orphanage.25 Since the sponsors' primary goal was to Americanize immigrants and
prevent their concentration in cities, rather than specifically to establish
farmers, they felt no compulsion to maintain the settlements as agricul tural colonies. Because their goal of removing immigrants from the
cities could be furthered by expanding employment opportunities in the
colonies, the Baron de Hirsch Fund and the JAIAS took steps to encour
age industrial growth. Discouragement with the agricultural sector,
coupled with the urban orientation of the sponsors and the increasingly industrial climate in America, led to policies that favored the colonies'
industrial sector over agriculture. While farmers were only eligible for
loans and were never offered subsidies for production, there was a con
sistent policy of subsidizing industrial enterprises. The sponsors under
stood that the establishment of industry would provide the farmers with
supplemental work, and a local market, as well as providing an opportu
34 Journal of American Ethnic History / Spring 1992
nity to remove nonfarming immigrants from the city to these rural sites
to work in factories. Thus, arrangements were made not only for sub
stantial loans to factory owners, but also to pay them cash subsidies
annually if they employed an agreed-upon number of workers.26
Both farm loans to individual families and pro-industrial policies helped to shape the colonies in the mold of the sponsors' vision by allowing and encouraging individual entrepreneurs to relocate to rural New Jer
sey, and by refusing aid to economic ventures not run on a businesslike
and individualistic basis. Yet sponsors went even further in their efforts
to shape the direction of these communities by screening new recruits,
exercising close supervision of colony affairs, and, on occasion, purging settlers whom they considered undesirable. Their desire that the colo
nies help the immigrants learn American ways and, specifically, American
capitalistic values, made it necessary for sponsors to screen out contrary influences. As one sponsor emphasized in a New York Times interview, "None of the Nihilists, Socialists, or anarchist elements will be toler
ated."27
Sponsors acted upon this sentiment in several confrontations, when,
following strikes over mortgage terms, "troublemakers" and "agitators" were dismissed from the colonies.28 Sponsors evicted "complainers" from
Alliance Colony as early as 1884.29 Later, as factories were established
in the colonies, the sponsors responded with equal harshness to labor
strikes. It was, in part, due to such difficulties in the colonies that spon sors in the 1890s moved away from a policy of supporting new colonies.
They continued, however, to aid old colonies and to support settlement
of individual families on scattered farms, a policy they felt would rein
force independence and individualism, and avoid any potential for "un
American" communal tendencies.30
While sponsor policies played a key role in the transition of the
colonies from settlements based on ideological commitment to the Am
Olam ideals of agrarianism and communalism, to communities based on
individualism and mixed agricultural-industrial production, this trans
formation was also largely determined by the changing nature of new
groups of settlers in the colonies. As in the western colonies which had
mixed populations, the presence of settlers in the New Jersey colonies
who were not Am Olam adherents tended to mute the radicalism of the
settlements.
In the early years, Am Olam members comprised a major component of the New Jersey colonies' populations. While these were never exclu
sively Am Olam settlements, members of the organization played a key
Eisenberg 35
role. Am Olam founders Sidney Baily and Monye Bokal settled in Alli
ance, while cofounder Moses Herder was an early Carmel colonist. It is
impossible to positively identify all Am Olam members, but it is clear that
at least eighteen additional members settled in Alliance during the first
three years, with several more settling in Carmel. These included lead
ers of Am Olam chapters from several Russian cities.31
Many other members of the South Jersey colonies in the initial period of settlement shared a regional background with the Am Olam colonists, which set them apart from the mass of Jewish immigrants. Of the set
tlers arriving between 1882 and 1885, fully 58.2 percent of those for
whom a regional origin could be determined came from the southern
Pale of Jewish settlement.32 This fact contrasts sharply with the profile of Jewish immigrants at large, for whom the northwest region domi
nated.33 Colonists from the south Pale, the birthplace of the Am Olam, were more likely to be connected with that organization than other
immigrant Jews, and even nonmembers from that region were more
likely to share a background with Am Olam members which predisposed them to be sympathetic to that organization's ideology.
Just as the early colonists differed in regional origin from the mass of
immigrants, their occupational background also contrasted with the larger
immigrant pool, and reflected their regional distinctiveness. The colo
nists were primarily of merchant background, according to contempo
rary accounts, and included a number of the scholars who dominated the
Am Olam movement, as well as farmers.34 This occupational distribution
reflects the regional bias in this group, and contrasts with the northwest
dominated mass of migrants, who were overwhelmingly of manufactur
ing (primarily garment-related) background, with merchants significantly
underrepresented.35 While immigrants from the south Pale did not continue to dominate
the colonies, they did dominate the agricultural sector. Throughout the
1882-1920 period, south Pale colonists were underrepresented in the
nonagricultural occupations and overrepresented in agricultural occupa
tions, with 75 percent of the south Pale colonists working in agriculture
(compared to 55.4 percent of the total colony population). South Pale
colonists made up 40 percent of the colonies' population in the entire
period, but 48.8 percent of the agricultural sector and 25.9 percent of the
nonagricultural sector. The concentration of immigrants from the south
Pale in the colonies' agricultural sector reflects both the .4m Olam affin
ity for farming as a means to redemption, and the greater exposure the
south Pale Jews, in general, had to agriculture-related activities.
36 Journal of American Ethnic History / Spring 1992
Because of the proximity of the settlements to large immigrant cen
ters, they were never exclusively Am Olam settlements. As soon as
settlement began, immigrants who were not connected with the Am Olam
joined for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with beliefs about
the value of agricultural labor or cooperative enterprise. Some reasoned
that life in the country would be more healthful for their families. Ironi
cally, many came for reasons antithetical to the nonreligious, commu
nistic goals of the Am Olam settlers. For example, some joined the
settlements because they were religious and they knew they would not
be compelled to work on the Sabbath in an all-Jewish town. Others
came to South Jersey because they wanted to take advantage of the
sponsors' offer of low interest loans, in order to buy their own homes,
farms, or businesses and become independent entrepreneurs. The proportion of such nonidealistic settlers in the communities in
creased sharply within the first few years of settlement as the disappear ance of the^Att Olam movement in the mid-1880s, coupled with sponsor
policies which encouraged industry and individualism while discourag
ing radicalism, led to a dramatic shift in settler origins. As many radicals
departed, the sponsors brought in new immigrants, and industries were
established. Industries grew to such an extent throughout the 1890s and
early 1900s, that by the 1910s they were almost on an equal footing with agriculture.36
The availability of factory work combined with the opportunity of
home ownership continued to encourage nonidealistic immigrants to
join the settlements in the late 1880s and afterward. While immigrants from the south Pale had dominated the colonies in the first three years, their proportion among new arrivals fell after 1885 to a low of 20.7
percent in the 1886-1890 period, and never recovered its former levels.
Thus, despite their early dominance, settlers from the south Pale com
prised only 40 percent of the colonies' population during the entire
period, 1882-1920.
The colonies never proved an attractive destination for the northwest
Pale immigrants who dominated East European Jewish migration in this
period. Instead, when immigration from the south Pale eased, primarily Polish Jews took up the slack. While Polish Jews, particularly those
from large cities, were predominantly engaged in manufacturing in their
home county, the industrializing Polish economy provided opportunities at home and decreased migration from the manufacturing sector.37 Thus, Polish Jews from both agricultural and industrial sectors contributed to
the migration wave, swelling both sectors of the colonies' economy.
Eisenberg 37
They ultimately comprised 25 percent of the colonies' population, with
their proportion in both agricultural and nonagricultural occupations cor
responding to that figure. Polish Jews, like most of the later settlers, were drawn to the colonies
for religious, cultural, and economic reasons, having nothing to do with
idealistic agrarianism. Those Polish settlers tended to be far more tradi
tional than the original colonists, and were immersed in the Yiddish
culture scorned by Am Olam secularists. Many of these traditional Pol
ish Jews were attracted by the idea of living in exclusively Jewish
settlements, and they were responsible for bringing vitality to the com
munities' religious institutions and for infusing the colonies with
Yiddishkeit, or Yiddish culture.
The dominance of immigrants of south Pale origin, and particularly of
Am Olam idealists, in the initial period of settlement helped to shape the
early development of the colonies as agrarian and cooperative. Almost
immediately, however, the influence of sponsor policies and the influx
of non-Am Olam settlers began to transform the colonies into mixed
industrial-agricultural settlements with economies based on private own
ership. Yet the colonies remained distinct from other American Jewish
communities. Those immigrants opting to settle in the colonies differed
from the mass of Jewish immigrants in both regional origin and occupa
tion, with Polish Jews, rather than Jews from the northwest Pale, migrat
ing to the communities in the post-1890 period. The distinctiveness of
these migrants from the mass of urban immigrants found expression in
the subsequent social, economic, religious, and cultural development of
the colonies which, while departing drastically from their original com
munal blueprint, remained a clear alternative to the dominant immigrant
pattern of ghetto settlement.38
The South Jersey settlements serve as examples of colonies which,
while surviving as economic ventures for a substantial period of time, were not maintained as agrarian communes. While analysis of the early cohort of settlers demonstrates that communal agrarian ideologies in
spired many, a changing population within the settlement and the pres sures of outside sponsors thwarted the practical adaptation of these ide
ologies. Sponsors and new settlers, neither of whom shared the Am Olam
vision, enabled the settlements to expand and survive, but, at the same
time, prevented their success as radical experiments.
38 Journal of American Ethnic History / Spring 1992
NOTES
1. Pearl Bartelt, "American Jewish Agricultural Colonies," a paper presented at
National Historic Communal Societies Association, annual meeting, October 1989,
Yankton, S.D. Bartelt's appendix contains a list of all of the colonies. She lists an
additional 37 colonies for the post-1891 period. A partial list of the colonies can also be found in Uri Herscher, Jewish Agricultural Utopias in America (Detroit, 1981).
2. An additional, larger colony, Woodbine, was founded in Cape May County in
1891 by the Baron de Hirsch Fund. 3. On regional differences within the Pale and their impact on Jewish responses
in the post-1880 period, see Ezra Mendelsohn, Class Struggle in the Pale (Cam bridge, 1970); Robert Brym, The Jewish Intelligentsia and Russian Marxism, (New York; 1978). For a discussion of Jews in Odessa, see Patricia Herlihy, Odessa: A
History (Boston, 1986); and Steven Zipperstein, The Jews of Odessa (Stanford, Ca lif., 1985). Calvin Goldscheider and Alan Zuckerman, The Transformation of the Jews
(Chicago, 1984) present a theoretical discussion of the differences between established and new areas of Jewish settlement, and the impact of modernization. Isaac Rubinow, Economic Condition of the Jews in Russia (1907; reprint ed., New York, 1975), provides details on occupational and economic differences between Jews in different areas of the Pale.
4. For example, in the south Pale province of Kherson, 7 percent of the Jews
were employed in agriculture, compared with the overall Pale figure of 2.3 percent. Statistics on employment by province are available in The Jewish Encyclopedia, ed.
Isidore Singer, vol. 1, "Agricultural Colonies" (New York, 1901). 5. The major source for information on the Am Olam movement is Abraham
Men?s, "The Am Oylom Movement," YTVO Annual of Jewish Social Science, 4
(1949): 9-33. Also see Mark Wishnitzer, To Dwell in Safety (Philadelphia, 1948): chap. 2.
6. Orlando and Violet Goering, "The Agricultural Communes of the Am Olam," Communal Societies, 4 (1984): 81.
7. Ibid., p. 83.
8. On Sicily Island see Richard Singer, "The American Jews in Agriculture, Past History and Present Condition" (Hebrew Union College Prize Essay, 1941), vol. 1: 326-328. On Cremieux, see Orlando and Violet Goering, "South Dakota's
Jewish Farmers: The Am Olam" (both on file at the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati).
9. Jewish Agricultural and Industrial Aid Society, Annual Report (New York, 1908). Also see Report of the Immigration Commission, "Recent Immigrants in
Agriculture," Immigrants in Industries, vol. II, pt. 24 (Washington, D.C, 1911). 10. Report of the Immigration Commission, ibid., p. 90. 11. Martin Douglas, Chronological Summary of Annotated Cards Toward the
History of the Jewish Agricultural Colonies in South Jersey (Ph.D., diss., Jewish
Theological Seminary, 1960), pp. 58-9. One deed for a group purchase of land in
Carmel is held by Faith Klein, great-granddaughter of Moses Herder.
12. By laws, Industrial Co-operation in Combination with Consumer Patrons, 1889 (at American Jewish Historical Society).
13. I. Harry Levin, "History of Alliance, New Jersey, First Jewish Agricultural Settlement in the United States," The Vineland Historical Magazine, 54 (1978): 4.
14. Joel Geffen, "Jewish Agricultural Colonies as Reflected in the Russian He
brew Press," American Jewish Historical Quarterly, 60 (June 1971): 367.
Eisenberg 39
15. Joseph Brandes, Immigrants to Freedom: Jewish Communities in Rural New
Jersey Since 1882 (Philadelphia, 1971), p. 31. 16. Steven Ascheim, Brothers and Strangers: The East European Jews in Ger
many and German-Jewish Consciousness, 1800-1923 (Madison, Wis., 1982), p. 5.
17. Pittsburgh Platform, adopted by the American Reform Movement, 1885.
Reproduced in Nathan Glazer, American Judaism (Chicago, 1972), p. 187. 18. Quoted in Steven Birmingham, "Our Crowd," The Great Jewish Families
of New York (New York, 1967), pp. 147-8. 19. Stephen M. Berk, Year of Crisis, Year of Hope (Westport, Conn., 1985); p.
155.
20. Moritz Ellinger, "The Report of Moritz Ellinger," (New York, Hebrew Emi
grant Aid Society of the United States, 1882). 21. There are numerous sources on sponsor attitudes. The minutes of the Baron
de Hirsch Fund and the Jewish Agricultural and Industrial Aid Society are available at the American Jewish Historical Society in Waltham, Mass. Selected records of
the Alliance Israelite Universelle are available at the American Jewish Archives in
Cincinnati, Ohio. Secondary sources on the sponsors include Zoza Szajkowski, "How the Mass Migration to America Began," Jewish Social Studies, 4 (1942); Brandes, Immigrants, chap. 3; and Samuel Joseph, History of the Baron de Hirsch
Fund: The Americanization of the Jewish Immigrant (1935; reprint ed., Fairfield, Conn., 1978).
22. Baron de Hirsch letter to Jacob Schiff, 16 September 1891. American Jewish Historical Society, Waltham, Mass.
23. JAIAS annual reports indicate frustration with colonists who believed that
early loans were gifts. See JAIAS, Annual Report (1902), pp. 8-9. This misunder
standing was based on the contrasting assumptions of sponsors and settlers. While
sponsors felt all assistance should be on a businesslike basis, the immigrants came
from a society which "upheld the right to charity as a birthright of a member of the
community." The immigrants' assumptions with regard to charity are discussed in
Arcadius Kahan, Essays in Jewish Social and Economic History (Chicago, 1982), pp. 123-4.
24. Foreclosures are recorded in the Jewish Agricultural and Industrial Aid
Society, minutes, American Jewish Historical Society, Waltham, Mass.
25. Jewish Agricultural and Industrial Aid Society, minutes, 1907. 26. Ibid. 27. New York Times, 27 April 1891 (interview with A. S. Solomon). 28. Brandes, Immigrants, p. 123.
29. Reported in Ha-Melitz, 20 (28 October 1884): 1226-1228. Translated by Geffen in "Jewish Agricultural Colonies," p. 355.
30. Ibid., pp. 123-126.
31. Several sources were used to determine Am Olam affiliation, including inter
views of descendants, surveys of descendants, and written sources such as memoirs.
Published memoirs include Bluma Bayuk Purmell Rappaport, A Farmer's Daughter
(Hayvenhurst, Calif., 1981); Sidney Baily, "Memoirs," in Jewish Agricultural Uto
pias, Uri Herscher, p. 133; and Arthur Goldhaft, The Golden Egg (New York, 1957). 32. The sources in n.31 were used in combination with citizenship records from
Salem and Cumberland Counties and ship passenger lists of boats departing from
Hamburg. The latter are available through the Family History Center of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
33. On the domination of the northwest Pale in the mass migration, see Simon
Kuznets, "Immigration of Russian Jews to the United States: Background and
40 Journal of American Ethnic History / Spring 1992
Structure," Perspectives in American History, 9 (Cambridge, Mass., 1975): 35-126.
34. See Moses Klein, The Watch Tower (Philadelphia, 1889) and Moses Bayuk, report to the Alliance Israelite Universelle, 1885 (American Jewish Archives, Cin
cinnati). Figures on occupations were obtained through the use of census and citi
zenship records, as well as interviews, surveys of descendants, and memoirs.
35. Kuznets, "Immigration of Russian Jews," p. 105.
36. In 1919, Carmel, Rosenhayn, and Alliance included 147 farming families and 124 nonfarming families. In addition, many of the farm families were also
employed in factories. See Phillip Goldstein, Social Aspects of the Jewish Colonies in South Jersey (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1921).
37. Kuznets, "Immigration of Russian Jews," pp. 116-117.
38. For example, while industries were established in the colonies, the high number of farmers lessened the influence of industrial labor. In the colonies, the
socialist movement was insignificant (despite the sympathy of some of the early radicals). Interaction with native-born Americans was much higher than in large
immigrant centers. The small size of the communities made landsmanschaften, a
significant feature of immigrant life in New York City, irrelevant.
Before the Melting Pot Society and Culture in Colonial New York City, 1664-1730
Joyce D* Goodfriend From its earliest days under English rule, New York City was unusually
diverse ethnically, with substantial numbers of Dutch, English, Scottish, Irish, French, German, and Jewish immigrants, as well as a large African
American population. Joyce Goodfriend paints a vivid portrait of this
society, exploring the meaning of ethnicity in early America and showing how colonial settlers of varying backgrounds worked out a basis for co existence. She argues that contrary to the prevalent notion of rapid Anglici zation, ethnicity proved an enduring force in this small urban society well into the eighteenth century.
"One of the most sophisticated studies of ethnicity in early Amer ica yet to appear."?John M. Murrin, Princeton University
Cloth: $35.00 ISBN 0-691-04794-4
Princeton University Press 41 WILLIAM ST. PRINCETON, NJ 08540 (609) 258-4900
ORDERS: 800-PRS-ISBN (777-4726) OR FROM YOUR LOCAL BOOKSTORE