sicily island and rishon le-zion a comparative...

Sicily Island and Rishon le-Zion A Comparative Analysis

Margalit Shilo

Whither: America or Eretz Yisrael (Palestine)? This question most aptly sums up the dilemma that plagued the Jewish world on the eve of the great wave of Jewish migration in 1881-82. It was a question echoed throughout the Jewish press of the time. From 1881 to 1914, almost 2.5 million Jews left Eastern Europe; the great majority set their sights on the United States of America, but some 60,000 headed for Ottoman Palestine,in two waves? During the first two years of that period, Jews on the move seemed to view both the United States and Eretz Yisrael as Promised Lands. For some, emigrating, whether to Palestine or to America, meant choosing agriculture as a profession. As Hayyim Hisin, one of the earliest immigrants to Palestine, wrote in his diary:

My innermost self was torn. When I decided to go to America, I planned to work on the land . ..,and afterwards to complete my studies at the university. I wished to work both for others and for myself. On the other hand, were I to go to Eretz Yisrael, I would have to devote myselfentirely to [agriculture]?

The first wave of immigrants reached U.S. shores in the first half of 1881, and by December of that year the first agricultural colony of Jews from Russia had been founded in Sicily Island, Louisiana. Jaffareceived the first wave of immigrants in the spring of 1882, and a few months later (July 1882) they founded the first colony (Hebrew: moshavah) established by pioneers from outside Eretz Yis- rael, Rishon le-Zion.?

Both colonies were indeed firsts, and both were seen by their founders as landmarks in Jewish history, models to be emulated by future generations. Sicily Island was referred to as "The FirstAgricul- tural Colony of Russian Israelites of Americal'while the very name of Rishon le-Zion means "First in Zion; and it was explicitly stated in

Sicily Island and Rishon le-Zion 183

the colony's regulations that "it shall serve as a model for our Jewish brethren who come to settle in the Holy Land.'+ The colony at Sicily Island was short-lived: most of the settlers left after a few months, while today Rishon le-Zion is a flourishing city. There is a voluminous literature on the history of Rishon le-Zion: jubilee volumes, memoirs, and scholarly works,? but the story of Sicily Island has been only touched on- and not very accurately - in a few studies of the history of Jewish agriculture in the United States, despite the availability of ample documentation6

Although Jewish immigration to Eretz Yisrael and to the United States produced such similar "first fruits: no attempt has been made to carry out a serious comparative study. Neither has there been any in-depth inquiry into the reasons for the different histories of Rishon le-Zion, which became a success story, and Sicily Island, which, though established in the so-called "Golden Land" of America, was a complete failure. In this article I shall try to trace the history of Sicily Island, drawing upon sources as yet unnoticed by the scholarly world. Special emphasis will be placed on the founders' goals, which will be compared with the motives and stories of the founders of Rishon le-Zion. In addition, I shall examine the reasons for the abandonment of Sicily Island, comparing them with the difficulties faced by the contemporary settlers in Palestine.

The Move Toward Agricultural Settlement

In 1881-82, Am Olam (Hebrew for "Eternal People"), now nearly forgotten, was the largest emigration movement among Russian Jews The Hovevei Zion ("Lovers of Zion") movement, which en- couraged emigration to Palestine, had as yet only small local branches. Both organizations directed their members toward agricultural work, though in different parts of the world. I shall concern myself here with two questions: (I) What prompted the newcomers to America and to Palestine to take up farming? and (2) in what re- spects did the motives of the members of Am Olam differ from those of Hovevei Zion?

'Ihe Jews had been urged to exchange their "non-useful"occupations for agriculture as far back as the eighteenth century, and there was certainly nothing new in the idea by the end of the nineteenth.

184 American Jewish Archives

Agriculture was considered to be a productive occupation, beneficial both to its practitioners and to the environment. The movement back to the land, to nature, was also intended to repudiate anti-Semitic charges that the Jews were parasites and middlemen, accustomed to making their living at the expense of others? The move to a new continent-America-was accompanied by a desire to alter the stereotype of the Jew and to counter anti-Semitic doctrines of Jewish inferiority? By taking up farming, the Jews would become eligible for citizenship in their new homeland; as one of the settlers in the New Jersey agricultural colonies wrote: "Our goal was to own a home and land as a means of earning a livelihood.. . to become the citizens of our adopted country?

Agricultural work was also believed to offer economic advantages. The various Jewish philanthropic organizations active in Europe and the United States, which supported the Jewish immigrants' ambitions tomove toAmerica,believed that "In time, the colonies and work on the land will be a reliable source of livelihood and suste- nance for a large number of the Jews immigrating from R~ssial"~ The fertile soil of America was an added incentive?' Moreover, America was desperate for settlers: "The leaders of the nation and notables of the country [America] . . . send and publish a manifesto and special pamphlets to announce and proclaim the goodness of the land to Europeans, to attract them to [America] from there.'"3

This was stated and restated in the American Jewish press and in manifestos sent to Europe. The Hebrew paper Ha-Tzefirah quoted an article from the weekly American Democrat, in which it was explained that aid would be granted to would-be settlers from Eastern Europe. The American Israelite calculated the prospective benefit to the local economy, concluding: "Upon these figures is it therefore only the Russian Jew that is benefited by coming to our great shelter, land of liberty? No, we as a people, of all religions and denominations, are benefited by his labors in our midstlf14

What lay in the thoughts of the Jewish immigrants who were willing to become farmers? What were their motives for taking such a bold step? Hermann Rosenthal, the leader of the group that settled at Sicily Island, explained their goals as follows:

I have long been aware of the fact that the ills of our nation will


not cease until it encompasses multitudes of workers producing livelihood and food in the world, - for a nation that lives only on other nations' labor will never survive.. . . One correct suggestion is, to my mind, to raise up among ourselves at least half a million farmers and laborers who will make a living from manual labor. The Russian Jews have both the will and the ability to work hard?

Rosenthal's explanation is striking. He considered himself a trail- blazer for the Jewish masses, and believed that Jews were capable of agricultural labor. Moreover, farming would not only benefit Jews on a personal basis, he believed, but would also restore the lost national dignity of the Jewish people. Only a mass movement of Jews toward productive occupations (farming or manual labor) would improve general attitudes toward Jewry. Hence such a movement in the United States would be a highly significant step for the entire Jewish people - a step of national significance.

Rosenthal wasnot alone in h o l m these opinions. Joseph Petrikowski, one of the first settlers in Sicily Island,who recorded the story of the colony in successive issues of Ha-Melitz under the headingUThe Burden of the Louisiana Desert: presented their aims as follows: "To re-create themselves and their brethren, to become farmers and workers of the land, and to serve as an example for their wandering nation.F6

Although the settlers attached muchimportance to Sicily Island as a Jewish project, it should be noted that they by no means considered it a separate Jewish national entity. Inspired though they were by feelings of brotherhood and responsibility for their suffering fellow Jews in Russia, they wished above all "to become free and useful citizensnof the United States, with no thought of national separatism? They regarded the shift toward agricultural settlement in the United States as a means of integrating into the fabric of American life as full-fledged citizens. What began as a movement of nationalsignificancebecame a medium for integration into the new society, These conflicting goals may be discerned in the colony's constitution (see below), which contains no hint of the settlers' Jewish identity other than its name.

The question of whether such agricultural ventures were worth- while troubled officials of Jewish philanthropic organizations in the United States. Would the enterprise contribute to social integration or further Jewish separatism? Opinions were divided. Some American

186 A rnericaiz Jnuish Archives

Zalman David Levontin, the founder of Rislzola le-Zion (courtesy of the Central Zionist Archives, Jert~salern)


Jewish leaders expressed the fear that a large concentration of Jews in their own colony might arouse neighbors' objections, and moreover hinder these Jews' absorption in American society? In order to integrate into the new society, it was said, Jewish immigrants should settle in large cities rather than rural communities. This view, perhaps, is what prompted some American Jewish leaders to adopt the argument that Jewswereincapable of working the land,proposing instead that the poor immigrants become peddlers? The argument was generally rejected, as it was by the Louisiana state commissioner for agriculture and immigration, who publicly declared that "the He- brew is not only a commercial man, but that if he puts the plough- share into the ground, the land will teem with abundan~e."~~ Many Jewish leaders from New York or other large urban centers, for their part, preferred to send the Russian refugees off to the western or southern regions of the United States, in order to distance them from existing Jewish communities and make them integrate into areas where there were few Jews?' This, they hoped, would prevent possible damage to their own well-entrenched positions in Ameri- can society.

Thus, the majority view prevailed and paved the way for the establishment of Sicily Island, as well as other colonies. Both Jews and non-Jews helped to train Jewish immigrants as farmers, feeling themselves partners in a major humanitarian enterprise to aid persecuted Jewish refugees."

The first pioneers in Ottoman Palestine left little written documentation of the ideological meaning of their activities. They were preoccupied first and foremost with the problem of buying land and the difficulty of settling it; their writings rarely go into theoretical discussions of ideas and goals. Theoretical essays by supporters of immigration to Palestine were usually written from the comfort of their homes in Europe.

Zalman David Levontin, the founder of Rishon le-Zion, who bought the land for the moshuvah, committed some of his thoughts and his friends' plans to writing. Reading his words, one is struck by the surprising resemblance to the motives of the founders of Jewish agricultural settlements in the United States. Levontin, who was twenty-six years old when he emigrated to Palestine, put much emphasis on the altruistic aspect of his acts: "To establish an agri-


cultural colony for the victims of persecution in their homeland:"3 Emigrating to Palestine, like emigrating to the United States, was seen as an economic solution to the profound distress of Russian Jewry. For Levontin, as for the settlers in America, settling in Eretz Yisrael was a means toward the future salvation of the Jewish masses. Economic success in the moshavot would increase the chances of more Jews coming to the country?4 Levontin, too, believed in the Jews' fitness for agricultural labor, declaring, "I know that the Jew and the plough are not 0pposites;'~5

Palestine was not densely populated toward the end of the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, Levontin and his colleagues were con- fident that the land would be cultivated: "The land is very good, and we shall be able to establish colonies here!'26 As evidence, he cited what he could see all over the country: "Wherever I have gone I have found and seen . . . olive trees, figs, grapes, vines, and in the valley we saw fields yielding abundant grain crops.'' Moreover, he believed that Eretz Yisrael could become "the land of freedom and liberation; just as the United States was seen by the immigrants alighting on its shores. He perceived no threat from the Arab inhabitants of the country; on the contrary, "the Arab natives will surrender before them, in loving and respectful awe of all Europeans."

What was the source of the faith that Palestine, a remote corner of the Ottoman Empire, was a safe haven from the misfortunes that threatened East European Jewry? Aaron Mordecai Freirnan, one of the founders of Rishon le-Zion, wrote, "Deep down, they felt that they really were on ancestral land, and this feeling helped them to overcome all obstacles, a ray of hope constantly shining before them to encourage them? They were convinced that the very choice of Palestine was like a return "to the land of our ancestors" -the title of Levontin's autobiography?

Despite the many similarities between the agricultural settlements in the United States and in Eretz Yisrael, there were two highly significant differences.

I. A central idea of the return to the land in Eretz Yisrael was the redemption of the land itself. "Redemption of the Land:' the term used in Hebrew for the purchase of land in Eretz Israel, also had a spiritual meaning. Buying land in Palestine was not


only expensive and complicated; it also possessed spiritual, national, religious, and political significance.'g

2. The purchasing of land and the whole settlement project were seen as a first step toward the ultimate return of the entire nation to its land, not just as a means of economic progress. As Levontin wrote, "The coming generation shall know what you [i.e., the first settlers] have done for our nation, our Torah, and our religionY3" The Russian-Jewish immigrants in America saw moving to the New World as a way for Jews from all over the world to improve their lot, but the ultimate goal of such improvement was integration in a new society, not perpetuation of Jewish otherness. The immigrants to the Holy Land,in contrast, were consciously engaged in creating an independent, separate Jewish entity.

To what degree did these different goals affect the character of the colonies and the way the Jewish settlers dealt with the adversity of existence in America and in Palestine?

Sicily Island and Rishon le-Zion: Birth Pangs

The official leader of Sicily Island was Hermann Rosenthal, a Jewish writer and publisher from Russia, who owned printing houses in Kiev and Kremenchug (Levontin's hometown)!' He was convinced that the Jewish problem in Russia could be solved only by resettling Russian Jews in theunited States as farmers. The most suitable region for settlement, he believed, was the western part of the continent. He arrived inNew York on August 16,1881, before the first refugees?' The news of hundreds of Jews eager to emigrate to the United States had finally made an impression, and two days after Rosenthal's arrival a manifesto was published, calling on the Jewish community to initiate organized aid to them?

In September 1881, when the great wave began to swell, the first public committee was formed in New York to deal with the newcomers, the Russian Emigrant Relief Committee!4 Simultaneously, local committees sprang up in other large cities: Philadelphia,Baltimore, Boston, Houston, San Francisco, and New Orleans. The flow of immi-


grants grew, surpassing all expectations?5Rosenthal strove to convince Jewish leaders that the proper solution was to settle the newcomers on the land?

A rapid response to Rosenthal's initiative came from outside New York. It was reported from New Orleans and other large Jewish centers that the local relief committees were ready to provide willing newcomers with land at no charge, on condition that they would work on it for at least five successive years?

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the state of Louisiana was sparsely populated and suffered frequently from epidemics and from flooding by the Mississippi River?* State governors practiced a policy of explicitly encouraging new settlers. The Jewish community of Louisiana, though small, was very active, and New Orleans Jewry was a significant part of the state's overall population?g The New York committee's appeal fell, therefore, on open ears.

The documentation of the aid provided by Louisiana Jews to the Russian immigrants has been preserved, and developments can be followed quite closely. The state's governor, Samuel D. McEnery, appealing through local Jews to the New York committee, offered to settle many Russian refugees in Louisiana. He proposed to give every family 160 acres of land at no cost?' The governor himself sent a telegram to the New York committee stating that Louisiana would welcome the newcomers and receive them with open arms. There was room, he insisted, for thousands of settlers. The New York committee did not waste time; it got in touch with the Jews of New Orleans and requested their assistance.

The New York committee faced many difficulties. The immigrants were not all capable of physical labor; funds were coming in very slowly and were insufficient to answer the many needs of the bur- geoning wave of Russian Jews. A group meeting in New York on November 27, 1881, decided to establish a new body, the Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society (HEAS)?' The Jews of New Orleans, having resolved to make their own contribution, met on November 28 and elected a new chairman for the local Emigrant Aid Society. The new societies in New York and New Orleans, anxious to prove their mettle, acted swiftly. The New Yorkers asked their New Orleans colleagues how many settlers could be sent to Louisiana. The answer was that they could send as many as they wished, but on condition


that those sent be farmers and vintners, or possibly also masons and builders capable of establishing settlements?'

Although almost none of the Russian immigrants had any agricultural experience, the potential settlers quickly signaled their readiness to work the land. Hermann Rosenthal, in an open letter, admitted that the southern state of Louisiana did not attract him, but the pressure of the New York society and the desire to act prevailed.

The principal point, however, was to make a beginning, and as experience has shown, the name "colony" alone and the fact that the Jews were emigrating to America to work there excited the respect of Russian society. In this country, also, our immigrants would be regarded in a different light if several colonies were establishedP3

The New Orleans society, for its part, was awaiting the arrival of thousands of immigrants with intense excitement. The chairman wrote the settlersquite frank1y:"We haveundertaken a great work.. . . No effort, no sacrifice should be spared to make our undertaking a success, in spite of all obstacles.. . . Money will not be lacking, do not fear? Jews outside Louisiana also took an interest in the first Jewish agricultural colony, and the endeavor was reported frequently and in detail in the American Jewish press of the time.

Rosenthal and the immigrant families left for the South in small groups, beginning in October 1881. HEAS financed the journey, but the money that should have been sent with the settlers to launch the settlement project was still not forthcoming. The New Orleans Jews, for their part,received the settlers warmly, found temporary lodgings for them in the city at state expense, and saw to all their needsP5

Since the site offered by the governor was ~nsuitable?~ two wealthy New Orleans Jews, Isidore andHenryNewman,offered an alternative -2,800 acres of their own property in Sicily Island, Catahoula Parish. A delegation of settlers went to check the site and approved the choice. The Newman brothers proposed to exempt the settlers from any payment during the first year; they would be entitled to buy the land in easy installments beginning in January 1885. It was agreed that if the colony were abandoned within two years of founding, the settlers would not be required to pay expensesf7

192 American ]ewis/i Archives

A postcardj?oin the Sicily Island, Louisiaiza, agricultural colony

Sicily Island and Xishon le-Zion 193

Some of the settlers had financial means, and together they invested $3,800 of their own capital in the colony. According to a preliminary estimate, each family required a basic capital of $500. HEAS sent only $1,800 from New YorkP8 This sum was inadequate for even the most basic needs, and the Emigrant Aid Society in New Orleans, in a letter dated December 15,1881, appealed to residents of the state of all sects and nationalities to join in the enterprise in any possible way. It declared: "We are proud of having formed a nucleus around which the oppressed citizens of Europe can gather with confidence in our desire to protect and encourage them." The governor also gave his blessings to the aid association and the new settlementP9 "The First Agricultural Colony of Russian Israelites of America" was founded toward the end of December 1881.

The multiple involvement in the foundation of Sicily Island - the settlers themselves, the Jews of NewYork, the Jews of New Orleans, the governor of Louisiana, the people of Catahoula Parish and other citizens of Louisiana -contrasts starkly with the vacuum in which the settlers of Rishon le-Zion were operating. Zalman David Levontin went to Palestine on behalf of two associations, one in Kremenchug, the other in Kharkov. Like Hermann Rosenthal, Levontin traveled to his new country at his own expense. On the way he met with Jews in Constantinople and Alexandria, hoping that they would offer some help - but in vain. Even in Palestine he found almost no one willing to help, and after visiting Jerusalem he complained that "there is no peace [among the Jews] in the Holy CityY0

In Jaffa Levontin set up the first committee to assist new immigrants wishing to establish colonies, the Valad Haluzei Yesud ha-Malalah ("Pioneers' Committee of the Beginning of the Immigration"). Its object was to help "all our brethren in the Diaspora who intend to make their home in this countryl'5' Levontin himself toured the country and personally sought a plot of land that would meet his requirements. He almost succeeded: he found a suitable piece of land in the Gaza district; at the last moment, however, he received a letter from his partners, to the effect that they had reconsidered and now wished to return to Russia? Only a handful agreed to carry on with the effort to establish a colony. After the arrival of a wealthy relative, Zvi Levontin, they located a plot of land not far from Jaffa. Levontin, like Rosenthal in America, was not impressed by the


quality of the land. But his colleagues urged him to go ahead, arguing, "If we do not complete the purchase of this land, surely your relative will sail away on the first boat to Russia and we shall lose all hope of doing somethingF3

In Eretz Yisrael, as in the United States, the decisive factor was determination to take the first step. Ten families contributed funds toward the purchase, and seven other families undertook to pay Zvi Levontin for their allotments of land in installments spread over five years. Unlike Sicily Island, Rishon le-Zion was established without any financial aid from local Jews, without government assistance, and with no help from the non-Jewish populace of the country. The settlers of Rishon le-Zion, too, calculated their expected expenses, and they, too, began building before the full sum was at their disposal. The land was uncultivated and there was no readily available source of water. Nonetheless, the settlers considered it a national landmark. Hermann Rosenthal saw the colony in Sicily Island in a similar light, as he wrote: "The case of the 'First Colony' seemed to me like a chapter in the history of Judaismlr54

Plans and Dificulties: The Constitutions

Both colonies, before actually implementing their plans, prepared detailed constitutions or regulations? The founders of Sicily Island submitted their constitution to the New Orleans public notary; the Rishon le-Zion regulations were written by the members of the Va'ad Haluzei Yesud ha-Ma'alah before they took possession of the land. The details of the constitutions, and above all their stated aims, explicitly indicate the settlers' views and policies. In Sicily Island:

The object and purposes of this association shall be the improvement of the moral and intellectual condition of its members and their families, to promote their welfare by united and harmonious action on their part, and to afford mutual assistance to themselves.

While the settlers of Rishon le-Zion stated their aims as follows:

The object of the founders of the colony is to better the material and moral condition of the members of the association, that it may


Rislzon le-Zion in the lclte 1880s (courtesy of the Central Zionist Avchives, Jerzrsalem)


serve as an example to our brethren the Children of Israel who come to settle in the Holy Land, to arouse the hearts of our fellow Jews for settling in the Land of Israel and reconstructing the remnants of the nation, and to assist the founders of other colonies to the best of their ability with advice and action.

The aim of the settlers in the United States was similar to the first goal enunciated in the Rishon le-Zion regulations. Both associations aspired to improve the lot of their members, economically, morally, and socially. The Sicily Islanders publicly announced their social intentions. The founders of Rishon le-Zion, though referring to the need for harmony and mutual aid, did so in the subsidiary clauses of their regulations.

The main object of the founders of the first Russian-Jewish colony in America was identical with the primary aim of the founders of Rishon le-Zion. But the latter went on immediately to state a further goal, unique to their undertaking: the new colony was an important stage in "reconstructing the remnants of the nation!' The welfare of the members was inseparably bound up with the overall national effort. The settlers in America, however, made no mention in their constitution of a desire to help their fellow Jews; only the name of the colony attested to the settlers' origins.

Another highly significant difference was the religious aspect of life in the colony. Religion was a prominent element in the Rishon le-Zion regulations, but was entirely lacking in the Sicily Island constitution. Under the heading "Unalterable By-laws: the founders of Rishon le-Zion stressed that the settlers would have to "behave in the spirit of our Torah, our religion, and the nation of Israel:' Moreover, "all members of the colony are obligated to observe all the commandments applicable only in the Land of Israel" (par. 34). Whereas the constitution of Sicily Island, as we have stated, does not even hint at any expression of the settlers' Jewishness? the settlers in Palestine attached religious significance to their endeavor.

Both colonies were supposed to maintain a democratic way of life. Their legal groundings, however, were different. Sicily Island was a legally constituted corporation that owned everything in the colony (Constitution, Article I). The land of Rishon le-Zion, however, was owned by the settlers. In both colonies a general assembly elected


a committee and was responsible for the proper administration of the colony. The committee members worked voluntarily and were subject to supervision by the other members. The committeeinRishon le-Zion, which was elected for three years, had more authority than the Sicily Island board of governors, which was elected for a term of just one year. The Sicily Island board was subordinate in certain areas to the New Orleans aid association, whereas in Rishon le-Zion there was no overseeing authority. Both committees were supposed to serve in a judiciary capacity as well, in case of disputes among members. All members of Sicily Island, whether they had invested their own capital in the colony or not, were considered to have equal rights. Not so in Rishon le-Zion, where there was a distinction between those of the founding members who owned their land and all the others. Only the founders were entitled to vote for committee members, to be elected to the committee, and to govern the colony. This distinction was the rule in the early colonies in Palestine. The equality practiced in Sicily Island may be evidence of socialist incli- nations among the colony's members?

The Sicily Island constitution decreed that the land and all farming implements, etc., including livestock, would be common property (Article XIV). Produce would be used for day-to-day consumption, and only the residue would be sold to defray the association's debts. Members who had invested funds in the colony would not receive more for their routine needs than others (Article x). In Rishon le-Zion, the members planned to work the land cooperatively but profits would be distributed among them according to the area of their holdings (Clause 30).

Was the cooperative way of life at Sicily Island an overriding objec- tive? The constitution, as well as members'memoirs, indicate that the cooperative principle was proposed only for the first years of the colony and, moreover, was not applied to all of its activities. Although both colonies intended to emphasize agriculture, their constitutions also provided for other avenues, such as business. Both constitutions ruled that members would assist one another in case of bereavement; both provided escape clauses, permitting the expulsion of members unable to integrate socially.

The founders of Sicily Island declared that their colony was to be in existence for twenty-five years. The Rishon le-Zion settlers did


not envisage any time limits to the existence of the colony. These differences in the constitutions had few practical implications for the everyday life of the settlement. As to whether they had any actual influence, this question will be considered in the final section of this paper.

The Sites of the Colonies

"They called it a 'Paradise' but we found nothing thereunto pertaining save some poisonous serpents, much however of Hell. A viler spot on God's Earth it would be hard to find."5' That was how Rosenthal described the site of the Sicily Island colony shortly after he settled there. Previously, in January 1882, Stanwood Menken, the president of HEAS, visiting Louisiana, had given a completely different account: "The land is rich, nearly one-half being under cultivation, and is not subject to overflow. It is in the vicinity of several thriving towns, but New Orleans is its best market, which can be reached by boat within forty-eight hours." Furthermore, wrote Menken, the climate was healthy, the winter generally mild. One could cultivate cotton, tobacco, sugar cane, corn, barley rice, and various kinds of fruit and vegetables. The breeding of cattle and fowl was recommended. The population of the region was approximately ~o,ooo, among them German and Irish immigrants as well as Jews.? These sharply contradictory descriptions of the site are typical of the story of this settlement enterprise from its very beginnings to its speedy end: great expectations and profound disappointment.

The 750 acres that Levontin and his associates had purchased also looked quite unpromising: "The place was desolate. Not one house, not even a booth or a hut in a field of cucumbers, not a tree and not a person, only thorn and thistle.. . . The many foxes in this place uttered their howl^."^

The land of Rishon le-Zion was uncultivated; there were no buildings, nor was there any source of water. The air was thought to be healthy and the settlers were faced with the task of converting untilled soil into a place fit for habitation, with their own hands. Another problem was the hostility of the local Arabs. Levontin, in his autobiography relates that even before they bought the land, the Jewish interpreter from Jerusalem warned that "this place, on which you intend to establish the colony, should be considered highly


danger~us.'~' Nevertheless, Levontin was not deterred. Did early expectations shape the first impressions of the people involved?

The Settlers

Who were the people who settled the two colonies? Menken, reporting the story of Sicily Island, speaks of 151 persons-fifty-one men, thirty-four women, and sixty-six children, most of them apparently from Yelizavetgrad? None of the settlers were old. They came from diverse backgrounds: a dozen merchants, eleven farmers, three teachers, the others of various professions. They had all expressed willingness to become farmers, and some of them possessed a limited amount of capital which they put at the disposal of the colony.

Seventeen families, approximately eighty people, from different parts of Russia, established Rishon le-Zion. Ten of the founders were, as we have intimated, persons of means. Some had been wealthy merchants in Russian cities, but only one, Judah Leib Hankin, who had owned an estate in Russia, had any farming experience.!3 Most of the immigrants to Eretz Yisrael, like most of those coming to the United States, lacked any agricultural experience and were not properly trained for a life on the land. Seven of the seventeen founders of Rishon le-Zion remained there all their lives64

A superficial examination reveals, therefore, much similarity between the two groups. However, they were quite different both in their ideals and in their ability to remain loyal to their goals.

Both colonies were inaugurated with pomp and circumstance. In New Orleans the first settlers set out for their new homes after a public celebration of Hanukkah. The first group consisted of men 0nl95 Women and children were to be brought only after the first buildings had gone up. Louisianans, Jews and non-Jews, generously donated money, tools, and building materials for the new colonyfj6 The residents of the surrounding area extended the settlers a most hearty welcome: "We the citizens of Catahoula parish, in mass meeting assembled, do hereby extend a cordial invitation to these


persecuted people to settle in our midst.. . and . . . we will extend to them every facility and protection in our p0wer."~7

Before leaving New Orleans the settlers, headed by Rosenthal, were quick to dispatch a warm letter of thanks to their benefactors.

You have done for us more than we had expected. Your act will assume a still greater magnitude when we reflect that you have aided us in finding a new home for thousands of our unfortunate co-religionists that are desirous of following us, to become free and useful citizens.?

These high spirits were maintained,upon arrival at the site. A contemporary report in the Jewish press praised the colonists'industriousness during this first phase.

Such quick work could not have been done by twice the number of laborers. The colonists are progressing nicely with preparing the fields for planting. Four hundred acres have been fenced, whereof twenty acres are already under cultivation of different kinds of vegetables ... .They have written to their friends in Russia to select Louisiana for their future home69

The documentation concerning everyday life at Sicily Island is rather fragmented. Many years later, some aspects of the settlement's history were described, under the promising heading, "Chalutzim in the Land of Cottony on the basis of interviews with the settlers themselves1° According to these reminiscences, the Russian immigrants used to singintheev&gs,particularly one of them,whowasa former opera singer. Social life was very active: debates were held on a variety of subjects, and one of the settlers taught the others Eng- lish. A Russian-language weekly was published, and a school opened for the children. Only a few of the women and children moved to the colony,7' but the rapid building of houses, with the help of the New Orleans Emigrant Aid Society, held out some hope of improvement in that respect. In light of the later speedy abandonment of the colony (see below), we may suppose that the settlers, looking back after many years, tended to paint the picture in brighter colors than the reality.


The few surviving contemporary letters testify to the considerable effort invested by New Orleans Jews in the colony. There was constant contact between the aid association and the colony, and the generous assistance rendered included items of clothing and food, even the opening of a store?' In order to encourage the fledgling farmers, one New Orleans Jew promised to buy the first bale of cotton produced at Sicily Island for $2,000 (the standard price of a bale was $40)73 It would seem that Sicily Island had gotten off to a good start.

The early days of Rishon le-Zion, as documented, give a completely different story. The Va'ad Haluzei Yesud ha-Ma'alah, the committee that the founders had constituted in Jaffa, fell apart. The Jews of Jaffa and Jerusalem did not provide any assistance. The committee of Hovevei Zion in Russia had not yet been established. Thus the entire responsibility for building the colony and supplying its needs fell on the shoulders of the founders. Levontin described the difficulties as follows:

We began to dig twowellsfto prepare roads, toprepare the site of the colony and places for vineyards and gardens, to quarry stones for building, and to hire workers to build the houses.. . . But no one can imagine this hard work that was imposed upon the shoulders of all the members of our group, only we ourselves know and understand it; we know that only by dint of marvelous courage could we have endured all the toils and adventures74

In Rishon le-Zion, too, the land was first cultivated on a cooperative basis; but this was soon discontinued because some of the settlers found themselves in graveeconomic straits75The supposedly accurate calculations that had preceded the actual launching of the project proved to have been in error. "In such a situation we realized that if aid were not forthcoming from outside, we would be lost, all l0st."7~

Help finally came from the Diaspora. Joseph Feinberg, a settler from Rishon le-Zion who had gone to Europe to appeal for funds, obtained a grant from Baron Edrnond de Rothschild. This aid enabled the colony to continue its agricultural work, to build homes for impoverished members, and to absorb additional members. Good fortune shone once again, seven months after the ground-breaking ceremony, when


the settlers found water. Russian officials who visited the colony eight months after its foundation could not conceal their admiration:

Your strength is the strength of stones, and you are made without fear. In such a short time you have been able to build houses, to plow, to sow fields and plant gardens, and to convert a desolate place into a place of habitation in this foreign land, though you were unacquainted with its air and its produce, its people and its tongue?

The story of Rishon le-Zion's success was long and tortuous. Never- theless, even before the baron took the place under his wing, despite all the difficulties, the settlers were able to build homes, plow the fields, and plant the first crops.

Sicily Island: Swift Desertion

Joseph Petrikowski's articles in the Hebrew newspaper Ha-Melitz sharply illuminate the reality of the Sicily Island colony. Despite all the aid, work did not progress as expected. Living conditions were difficult, and the New Orleans aid association had no experience in cultivating the land. The attempt to establish a communal life was failing? Letters from immigrants who had settled in America's cities informed the settlers of their colleagues' more comfortable lives and success. A journalist who visited the colony heard complaints from members that the work was back-breaking and that they were eager to leaveT9

At a general meeting held on March 1,1882, less than three months after the colony was established, settlers complained of intractable problems: the climate was unhealthy; the weather was intolerable; the population of the district had fallen over the previous ten years, the remaining residents were poor and socially deprived, and there were no schools or cultural institution^?^

At the meeting, after giving vent to their bitter feelings and disappointment, the settlers begged the members of the New Orleans committee to transfer them to some other location. They claimed that the original target had not been met, and they had not become "the first pioneers, an example to those coming later.. . . Who, of all


the wanderers of Russia, would risk his soul to come to them and endure, like them, the hardships that had befallen them?" The answer from New Orleans was unequivocal:

This colony cannot possibly be disbanded, lest the gentiles say that the Russian Jews are lazy and refuse to work willingly with their own hands.. . . The land is not noisome, as long as not one of the colonists has died; but even if three or four of them had died, what do they count for as against the sacred endeavor whose goal is to redeem the whole people of I~rael?~'

The move to abandon the colony began even before the Missis- sippi flooded the place: "In a few months one half of the emigrants had left the colony and gone to become salesmen or to work in fac- tories in the large cities."'" In April, only four months after the colonists arrived at the site, the Mississippi overflowed its banks, flooding their fields, ruining their crops, and washing away their property. A few settlers continued to live on Sicily Island for a short while. Our information about them derives from the archives of the Touro Infirmary at New Orleans, where many of them were treated for malaria.83

The last settlers left the colony toward the end of 1883.84 Rosen- thal, who, like several others, had personally lost money in the ven- ture, left after the flood. In May he met the members of HEAS in New York to discuss the possibility of an agricultural settlement at a new location (see below). Some of the settlers from Sicily Island joined other colonies in western states, while others found homes in the cities.

Sicily Island and Rishon le-Zion Compared

Setting the similarity between the two colonies against the different outcomes, one may ask whether any conclusions can be drawn from the different fates of the two colonies. An answer to this question requires an attempt to determine why the colony in Louisiana, unlike that in Palestine, failed so miserably. Students of the history of Sicily Island have frequently deliberated the reason and suggested various explanations. The major ones are as follows:


1. The settlers were unsuited for life on the land. Most were persons of limited means, dependent on funds provided by others.85 They were not chosencarefully, and most of themhad no previous farming e~perience.8~ However, these drawbacks were also fairly typical of the settlersinPalestine. The fact that thosewhowent to Americaabandoned the project, while those who went to Eretz Yisrael persevered and succeeded, proves quite conclusively that the lack of a suitable background for a farming life was not the key to the failure.

2. The site was not suitable for cultivation. We have already listed the disadvantages of Sicily Island: unfavorable climate, flooding, sickness. On the other hand, the primitive conditions in Ottoman Palestine toward the end of the nineteenth century are well known. On this count one should compare Sicily Island with Mishmar ha-Yarden and Haderah, two colonies established in Palestine toward the end of the nineteenth century, which were known for their bad climate, swamps, and the malaria that took many victims. The settlers in Eretz Yisrael made great efforts to clear their land and eliminate the unhealthy elements.

3. Another factor blamed for the failure was the cooperative way of life, which may have caused friction among members. Julius Goldman, sent by HEAS in 1882 to survey the prospects for Jewish settlement in the West, believed that this was indeed the main reason for the collapse at Sicily I~land.~7

4. Last, the settlers were acutely lonely in their new home. De- spite the initial enthusiastic reception, they felt isolated. They perceived the residents of the surrounding region as "oafish, lazy andignorant farmers, who had not forgotten the manners of their slaverfg8~he settlers at Sicily Island looked down on the local rustics, an attitude that only nourished their pessimistic view of the colony's chances to succeed. The comparison withRishon le-Zion is enlightening. The first Zionist immigrants to Palestine regarded the local Arabs as primitive and backward. However, they refused to consider the poor agricultural achievements of the Arabs as proof of the country's infertility; on the contrary, theyblamedtheArabs'neglectof thelandandtheir primitive agriculture for the poor condition of most of Ottoman Palestine.


Hermann Rosenthal, the founder, who had been among the first to abandon ship, asked HEAS in New York to help him establish other colonies. His new plan, he claimed, would avoid the pitfalls of the first attempt. He planned to set up eleven small colonies simultaneously in the West, near the railroad, on the basis of private ownership and the assistance of a reliable farming instructor. Rosenthal even planned to provide in advance for the settlers' cultural life and to establish an agricultural school. He would be willing, he said, to help with the new project in return for a permanent salary.89 The details of his proposal seem to indicate that he attributed the failure in Louisiana to the poor quality of the soil in Sicily Island and the settlers1 feeling of isolation. He may also have intimated that the settlers felt so free to abandon the land because they did not own it.

Uri Herscher, one of the few scholars to attempt a comparison of the settlement in America and the contemporary endeavor in Eretz Yisrael, has argued that until 1900, agricultural settlement in the latter country was also more or less a failure. The moshavot were able to survive, he writes, only thanks to the help of Baron Edmond de Rothschild? There is no doubt that the baron's support ensured the survival of "his" colonies. Nevertheless, the colonies existed before his arrivalon the scene, and those that received no aid also continued to develop?'

Jews established agricultural colonies around the turn of the century in SouthAmerica,Canada,Russia,and elsewhere.The great majority of these colonies were abandoned within a few years?' However, conditions in these countries were different from those in Louisiana. Can a comparison of Sicily Island and Rishon le-Zion provide a test case for a discussion of Jewish agricultural colonies in general? Any claim to answer this question in the affirmative would be over- ambitious. However, the following arguments must be taken into consideration.

On the one hand, the fate of Jewish agriculture in the United States was sealed by the economic processes of urban growth and the decline of agriculture in general; it might well be argued that these were the root causes of the failure in LouisianaP3 On the other hand, the lack of avenuesfor economic activity in the cities of Ottoman Palestine in the late nineteenth century guaranteed the progress of agriculture in the moshavot. It is impossible to evaluate just how these circumstances


affected the development of the colonies, but they must be borne in mind. Moreover, agriculture was not only the major economic endeavor in Palestine; it was seen as a new and ideal mode of life.

Aharon Kellerman, in a recent study, has discussed the idea that "Space may be seen as both absorbing and creating ideas and ideol- ~ g y l ' ~ ~ Listing mode of life as one of the three objectives that shaped the settlement of Israel (the other two being territory and populatiod?5 he begins his discussion with the cooperative ideal, conceived in Palestine at the start of the twentieth century. Extending this line of thought back to the earlier part of the 188os, one might suggest that the new mode of life guiding the Jewish settlers in Palestine was the establishment of an autonomous Jewish entity. Adherence to this idea and ideal may very well explain the survival of Jewish agricultural settlements in that country.

Contemporaries of the early settlers spoke of their motivation in a different tone. Thus, one reads in a contemporary issue of Ha-Melitz:

Those who set out for America are desirous of benefiting only themselves. They will become people who earn a livelihood from the labor of their own hands, like any other person on the face of the earth; while those who set out for the Land of Israel will benefit all of our nation, for the Jews will find life on their ancestral soil, like all other nations on the face of the earth; while the former possess the present.. . the latter also possess the f ~ t u r e ? ~

The same motif was later noted by Arthur Ruppin, who pointed to the national idea as the primary factor in the success of practical Zionism: "The road to Jewish agricultural colonization is beset with obstacles, and it is doubtful whether they canbe overcome. In Palestine they have been overcome only thanks to national enthusiasm."97

Margalit Shilo is a senior lecturer in the Department of Israel Studies at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. She is the author of Experiments in Settlement (Hebrew), which in 1988 was awarded the Haifa Municipality Prize.


Notes

This study was sponsored by the Dr. Irving and Cherna Moskowitz Chair in Land of Israel Studies, Bar-Ilan University. The first (Hebrew) version was published in Zion 59, no. 1 (igg4): 65-95. I would like to thank David Louvish for translating the article into English.

I. A. Gertner, "The Mass Migration of European Jews, 1881-1914" (Heb.), in Emi- gration and Settlement in Jewish and General History, ed. A. Shinan (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 343-384; M. Wischnitzer, To Dwell in Safety (Philadelphia, 1948), pp. 37-66; J. Frankel, ProphecyandPolitics (Heb.) (Tel Aviv, ig8g), pp. 157-165;idem, "The Crisis of 1882 as a Turning Point in Modern Jewish Histow in The Legacy of Jewish Migration, ed. D. Berger (New York, 1983), pp. 9-22; J. Kaniel, "Jewish Emigration from Pales- tine During the Period of the First and Second Aliyot" (Heb.), Cathedra 73 (1994): 138-115.

2. H. Hisin,From the Diaryofa BiluMember (Heb.) (Jerusalem, iggi),p. 35 (emphasis added). Bilu was an association established by Russian youth in 1882 to organize mass emigration to Palestine. Of the approximately 500 members in Russia, only a few dozen actually did emigrate.

3. J. S. Menken,Report on Formation of the First Russian Jewish Colony in the United States at Catahoula Parish, Louisiana (London, 1882). I am indebted to Ms. Claire Dienstag, chief librarian of the Judaica Department, New York Public Library, who sent me a photocopy of this report. Rishon le-Zion, founded on July 29,1882, wasthe first colony established by the members of the First Aliyah. Earlier colonies, founded by representatives of the Old Yishuv, were Gei-Oni and Petah Tikvah.

4. "Regulations of Rishon le-Zion:' in A. Druyanow, Documents on the History of Hibbat-Zion and the Settlement of Eretz Yisrael (Heb.), ed. S. Laskov, vol. I (Tel Aviv, 1982)~ p. 470.

5. D.Yudelovich, Rishon le-Zion, 5642-5701 (Heb.) (Rishon le-Zion, 1941); A.M. Freimann, Jubilee Volume on the History ofthe Colony of Rishon le-Zion (Heb.), vol. I (Jerusalem, 1907); R.Aaronsohn, "The Establishment and Initial Development of ZikhronYa'akov and Rishon le-Zionas Two of the First Jewish Colonies in Palestine, 1882-1883" (Heb.) (M.A. thesis,Hebrew University, 1979). Other sources and studies will be cited below.

6. Seethestudies citedbelow.Cf.,e.g.,M.Naor,'TalestineAcrosstheOcean"(Heb.), Etmol6/i [33] (September-October 1980): 22-23.

7. On Am Olam, see A. Menes, "The Am Oylom Movement:' MVO Annual of Jewish Social Science 4 (1949): 9-33; H.Tortal,"The Am Olam Movement" (Heb.), Ha-'Ever lo (1963): 124-144; S. Laskov, The Bilu'im (Heb.) (Jerusalem, igyg), pp. 21-26; J. Salmon, "Ideology and Reality in the Bilu Movement" (Heb.), Shalern 3 (1981): 191-183; Y. Oved, Two Hundred Years of American Communes ( ~ e b . ) (Ramat Ef'al, 1986), pp. 267 ff.

8. J.Brandes, Immigrants to Freedom: Jewish Communities in Rural Nau Jersey Since 1882 (Philadelphia, ig71), pp. 12.19.


9. G. Wishnick Dubrovsky, The Land Was Theirs: Jewish Farmers in the Garden State (Tuscaloosa, Ala.,l992), pp. io,15. For Michael Heilprin's account of the Jews of Rus- sia, see Jewish Messenger(NewYork), June 30,1882. 10. Brandes, Immigrants to Freedom, p. 23. 11. Y. D. Eisenstein, "The Jews in the New Land" (Heb.), Ha-Tzefirah, 23 Adar 5642

[March 14,18821, no.io,p.76. 12. H. Z.S., 'A Look at the Question of Working the Land" (Heb.), Ha-Tzefirah, 25

Tammuz 5651 [July 31,18911, no. 161, p. 652. 13. Y. D. Eisenstein, "History of the Colonies Founded by Our Brethren the

Refugees from Russia in America" (Heb.), Ner ha-'Ivri (New York) 2, no. 1 (1898): 9-10. 14. American Israelite, December 2,1881; H.Z.S., 'A Look at the Question:' p. 664. 15. Y. Petrikowskitf'The Burden of the Louisiana Desertt'(Heb.), Ha-Melitz, 19 Hesh-

van 5644 [November 19,18831, no. 86, p. 1363. In ibid., no. 87,29 Heshvan 5644 [No- vember 29,188~1, at the end of the article, it was mentioned that the writer was living at the colony of Crkmieux in Dakota,U.SA. In an interview published in the Jewish Messenger, April 21,1882, one of the members, Jacob Borowick, Rosenthal's deputy, related that he himself had planned the project as early as 1877 in Russia, where he had also begun to assemble prospective settlers. 16. Petrikowski,"Burden of the Louisiana DesertYi2 Heshvan5644 [November 12,

18831, no. 84, p. 1325 (emphasis added). 17. As Hermann Rosenthal wrote Julius Weiss early in 1882: "The founding of a

new home for thousands of our wretched coreligionists who wish to follow in our footsteps and become free and useful citizens." Cited by L. Shpall, 'A JewishAgricul- tural Colony in Louisiana:' Louisiana Historical Quarterly 20, no.3 (July 19~7): 824. For a discussion of the possibility of a separate Jewish national entity in the United States, see Menes,'%m Oylom MovementYpp.18-19. 18. See Eisenstein,"History of the Co1onies:'p. lo. For the correspondence of the

leaders of HEAS, see M. Berman, The Attitude of American J w y Towards East Euro- pean, Jewish Immigration (New York,i980), p.325. 19. Z. Szajkowski,"The Attitude of American Jews to East European Jewish Immi-

gration, 1881-1893:' Publication of the American Jewish Historical Society 40 (195e51): 246,269. 20. Menken, First Russian Jewish Colony, pp. 4-5. 21. G. Osofski,"The Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society of the United States, 1882-1883:'

Publication of the American Jewish Historical Society 49, no.3 (March 1960):178. And cf. also Szajkowski, 'Attitude of American Jews:'p. 244; Dubrovsky, The Land Was Theirs, p. 8. 22. Menken, First Russian Jewish Colony, citing the New Orleans Emigrant Aid So-

ciety. Cf. also below. 23. Z.D.Levontin, To the Land of Our Ancestors (Heb.), vo1.i (Tel Aviv, i924), p.9. 24. Aaronsohn, "Establishment and Initial Development,!' p.27. 25. Levontin,To the Land, p.10.


26. Zalman David Levontin to Perez Smolenskin, 21 Adar 5642 [March 12,18821, in Druyanow, Documents, vol. I, p. 190. 27. Freiman, Jubilee Volume, p.10. 28. Zalman David Levontin to the editor of Ha-Maggid, 22 Nisan 5642 [April 11,

18821, in Druyanow, Documents, vol. 1,p.218. 29. S. Almog, "Redemption in Zionist Rhetoric" (Heb.), in Redemption of the Land of

Eretz Yisrael, ed.R. Kark (Jerusalem, ~ggo), p. y. 30. Levontin to Smolenskin, p. 191. 31. U.D. Herscher, Jewish Agricultural Utopias in America, 1880-1910 (Detroit, 1981),

pp. 329-330. Herscher quotes from a letter in which Rosenthal told the story of his life before coming to the United States. See idem,"Hermann Rosenthal: The Jewish Farmerj"Michael3 (1975): 59-87; G. M.Price,"The Russian Jews in America:' Publica- tion of the American Jewish Historical Society 48, no. 2 (December 1958): 84. 32. Petrikowski, "Burden of the Louisiana Desert:' p. 1363; Osofski, "Hebrew Emi-

grant Aid Society:' p. 174-information about the institution of an immigrant aid society in May 1881. 33. H.Z.S. 'A Look at the Question,!' 27 Tarnrnuz 5651 [August 2,18911, no. 162, p.

656. 34. Osofski, "Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society, p. 75. For anaccount of the first Russian

immigrants' arrival in New York, on the steamship Egypt(!), see JewishMessenger, Sep- tember 30,1881; M. Wischnitzer, Visas to Freedom: The Sto y of Jewish Migration Since 1800 (Cleveland, 1956), pp. 23-30. 35. HZS., 'ALook at the Question:'loc.cit.: "At first they gaveeach one eight dollars

per week for food and dwelling, and a sum for new clothes to cover their nakedness, until they should find jobs and work in New York City or be sent to the provincial cities to the west and south." 36. Szajkowski, 'Attitude of American Jewsypp. 246-247, cites Rosenthal's letter

dated May 24,1882. 37. Y.D.Eisenstein, "America, the JewsintheNew Land" (Heb.),Ha-Tzefirah,5 Tevet

5642 [December 27,18811, no. 49, pp. 388-389. 38. A. Fortier, ed., A Histoy of Louisiana (New York, ~goq), vol. 4, p. 2; M. I. Carl-

ton, The American Domination, 1861-1903 (Baton Rouge, La., 19B5), pp.194-2x9. 39. B. W. Korn, The Early Jews of New Orleans (Waltham, Mass., 196~); W. E. Myers,

The Book of the Israelites of Louisiana (New Orleans, 195); I. M. Isaacson, 'IA History of Jewish Philanthropy in New Orleans" (M.A. thesis, Tulane University, 1937); J.B. Feibelman, A Social and Economic Study of the New Orleans Jewish Community (Philadelphia, 1941). 40. Ha-Tzefirah, 12 Tevet 5642 [January 3,18821, no. 50, p. 397; M. Heller, Jubilee Sou-

venir of Temple Sinai, 1872-1922 (New Orleans, 1922), p.67. 41. Osofski, "Hebrew EmigrantAid Society:' pp. 175-176. For areportonthe organi-

zation of the committee in New Orleans, see Jewish Messenger, October 14, October 28, November 4,1881, and January 13,1882. 42. H.Z.S., "A Look at the Question:' loc. cit. 43. Szajkowski, "Attitude of American Jews:' pp. 246-247; cf. Petrikowski, "Burden


of the Louisiana Desert:' no. 68, p. 1363. The would-be settlers originally wished to settle in Kansas; see L.Shpal1, "Jewish Agricultural Colonies in the United States:' Agricultural History 24, no. 3 (July 1950): 131. 44. Sol Marks to New Orleans Emigrant Aid Society, January9,1882,American Jew- ish Archives, Cincinnati, Section "Sicily Island, Louisiana" (hereafter cited as AJA); letter from the previous chairman, November 29, 1881, see American Israelite, De- cember 9,1881. 45. Menken, First Russian lm'sh Colony, p. A2. For reports of activities by New Or-

leans Jews, including their wives, see Jewish Messenger, November 4 and December 16,1881, January 13,1882. 46. Shpal1,"Jewish Agricultural Colon$ pp. 822-823. 47. Menken, First Russian Jewish Colony, pp. 3-5. For criticism of the purchase con-

ditions, see Eisenstein,"History of the Colonies:' p. 11. 48. Szajkowski, 'Attitude of American Jews:' p. 247. 49. Menken, First Russian Jewish Colony, p. 6. 50. Levontin,To the Land, pp. 10-19 (quotation on p.17). 51. Constitution of Va'ad Haluzei Yesud ha-Ma'alah, May 4, 1892; Druyanow,

Documents, vol. 1, pp. 238-239. 52. Levontin, To the Land, p. 50. 53. Ibid., p.55. 54. Petrikowski, "Burden of the Louisiana Desert:' no. 86, p. 1362. This was also the

view of the chairman of the New York society, Menken, in his report to the American Israelite, January lo, 1882. 55. The constitution of Sicily Island was submitted to a notary for approval on

December 16,1881; it was first published by Menken (First Russian Jewish Colony, pp. 9-15) and republished by Shpall ("Jewish Agricultural Colon$ pp. 825-831). The constitution of Rishon le-Zion was first published in the Hebrew newspaper Ha-Lmanon in September 1882; Druyanow, Documents, vol. 1, pp. 470-475. All sub- sequent quotations are based on these sources (with emphasis added; the excerpts from the Rishon le-Zion constitution have been translated from the original He- brew). For a discussion of the Sicily Island constitution, see also Herscher, Jewish Agricultural Utopias, p.34. The following comparison does not discuss the imple- mentation of the constitution. 56. Among the commodities sent by the New Orleans committee to Sicily Island

was lard; see above, n. 44, and Menes, "Am Oylom Movement:' p. 22. 57. On the socialist tendencies of Am Olam, see Oved, Two Hundred Years of

American Communes, pp.267 ff. 58. Szajkowski, 'Attitude of American Jews:' p. 247. 59. Menken, First Russian Jewish Colony, p. 4. This report was also published in the

press:American Israelite, January 20,1882. And cf. Zvi benTuviah ha-Gershuni, "The State of the Jews in America and Their Activities (Second Letter)" (Heb.), Ha-Melitz, 5 Adar 15643 [February 12,188~1, no. 9. pp. 134-135. The articlewas fullof inaccuracies. It was quoted by J. S. Geffen, "Jewish Agricultural Colonies as Reported in the Pages


of the Russian Hebrew Press:' American Jewish Historical Quarterly 60 ( 1 9 7 ~ 1 ) :

355-382. 60. Levontin, To the Land, p. 59. 61. bid. 62. Menken, First RussianJewish Colony, p. 16. Other authors give different estimates.

See also Jewish Messenger, April 14, 1882. Most probably, the settlers had already been organized as a group in Russia. 63. For a detailed description of the founders, see Yudelovich, Rishon le-Zion, pp.

32-55; Aaronsohn, "Establishment and Initial Development:' p. 83. For a compari- - son of the settlers in America and Palestine, see Y. Kellner, The First Aliyot: Myth and Reality (Heb.) (Jerusalem,i982), pp. 95-96. 64. Five of the founders remained in the colony and died there, two died while

visiting outside Palestine, six left Rishon le-Zion but continued to live in the country till their deaths. Hermann Rosenthal and Zalman David Levontin were among the first to abandon their colonies. 65. Heller, Jubilee Souvenir of Temple Sinai, pp. 69-70. 66. For a detailed account of the contributions, see Menken, First Russian Jewish

Colony, pp. 6-7. 67. American Israelite, December 23, 1881. See also Menken, First Russian Jewish

Colony, p. 17. 68. Menken, loc. cit.; Rosenthal to New Orleans Emigrant Aid Society, December

21,1881. 69. American Israelite, March 24,1882. Eisenstein, "History of the Colonies:' p. 12,

cites a letter Rosenthal wrote to the local press reporting the achievements of the first month. 70. G.DavidsonandE.Goodwin, "Chalutzimin theLand of Cotton:' Jewish Tribune,

September 27,1929, pp. 2-15. Davidson and Goodwin were directors of the Jewish Agricultural Society in the United States. 71. Hermam Rosenthal to Sol Marks, February 24,1882, in collection of letters

from "First Agricultural Colony of Israelites in America," AJA. 72. Frank Diamond (member of colony) to Sol Marks, member of Emigrant Aid

Society, May 22,1882, AJA, loc. cit. 73. Davidson and Goodwin, "Chalutzim in the Land of Cotton," p. 2.

74. Levontin, To the Land, p. 62. 75. bid., p. 63. 76. bid. 77. bid., p. 79. 78. Petrikowski, "Burden of the Louisiana Desert:' 19 Heshvan 5644 [November

19,18831, no. 86, p. 1364. 79. Jewish Messenger, April 14,1882. 80. Petrikowski, "Burden of the Louisiana Desert:' no. 86, p. 1362; ibid., 29 Heshvan

5644 [November 29,18831, no. 87, p. 1379. It is striking that people complained of the summer heat on the sole basis of hearsay, without having experienced it. See also Jewish Messenger, April 21,1882, reporting settlers' complaints that the heavy rains


prevented them from going out to work. The same paper, on June 2,1882, reported efforts by the Emigrant Aid Society in New Orleans to revive the colony. 81. Petrikowski, "Burden of the Louisiana Desert:' loc. cit. 82. Eisenstein, "History of the Colonies: p. 13. For reports of members leaving

the colony, see Jewish Messenger, July 21,1882. 83. Touro Infirmary Archives, New Orleans, list of patients for 1882, reporting pa-

tients arriving at the hospital in October and December 1882. This information con- firms that the colony did not break up immediately after the flood of April 1882. 84. Petrikowski, "Burden of the Louisiana Desert:' 29 Heshvan5644 [November 29,

188~1, no. 87, p. 1380. Reports that the colony had broken up were published in the Jewish Messenger, December 22 and 29,1882. 85. Dubrovsky, The Land Was Theirs, pp. 17-18; Price, Russian Jews, pp. 79-80. 86. G. Davidson, Our Jewish Farmers and the Story of the Jewish Agricultural Society

(New York, 1 9 ~ ~ ) . pp. 194-233; Berman, Attitude of American Jewry, p. 390; Kellner, Firsf Aliyof, p. 95. 87. J. Goldman, Report on the Colonization of Russian Refugees in the West (New York, 1882), p. 23. 88. Petrikowski, "Burden of the Louisiana Desert:' p. 1379; Dubrovsky, The Land

Was Theirs, p. 17. 89. Berman, Attitude of American Jewry, pp. 332-333. 90. Herscher, Jewish Agricultural Utopias, p. 115. 91. See R. Aaronsohn, Baron Rothschild and the Colonies: The Beginnings of Jewish

Colonization in Eretz Yisrael, 1882-1890 (Heb.) (Jerusalem, iggo), p. 300. 92. H. Avni, The Promised Land: Baron de Hirsch's Colonization Project in the Argentina

Republic (Heb.) (Jerusalem, 1973); A. Tartakower, Jewish Settlement in the Diaspora ( ~ e b . ) (Tel Aviv, i959);A. Ettinger, With Jewish Farmers in the Diaspora (Heb.) (Mer- havyah, 1942);Z. Livneh (Lieberman),Jewish Farmers in Russia (Heb.) (Tel Aviv, 1967); Y. Katz, "Jewish Agricultural Settlement in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries" (~eb . ) , Yahadut Zemannenu (Contemporary Jewry) 7 (1~92): 283-310. 93. F. A. Shannon, The Farmer's Last Frontier: Agriculture, 187~-1897, vol. 5, The

Economic History of the United States (New York, 19451, p. 357; J. A. Garraty, The New Commonwealth, 1877-1890 (New York, 1968), p. 42; A. M. Schlesinger, The Rise of the City, 1878-1898 (Chicago, 19611, p. 17. 94. A. Kellerman, Society and Sett1ement:Jewish Landof Israel in the Twentieth Century

(~lbany, N.Y., 1993), p. 18. 95. Ibid., p. 33. 96. "Current Affairs" (Heb.), Ha-Melitz, 5 Heshvan 5644 [November 5,18831, no. 82,

p. 1288. 97. A.Ruppin, The Jewish Fate and Future, trans. E. W. Dickes (1940; reprint ed.,

Westport, Conn., i972), p. 184. See also A. Tartakower, Jewish Wandering Around the World ( ~ e b . ) (~erusalem, 1947), p. 99; idem, The Wandering Man (Heb.) (Tel Aviv, 1954), p. 170; Y. Kellner, For the Sake of Zion ( ~ e b . ) (Jerusalem, 19771, pp. 142-147; M. Shilo, Experiments in Sefflement (Heb.) (Jerusalem, 19881, pp. log-111.

Jewish Immigrant Farmers in the Connecticut River Valley:

The Rockville Settlement

Mark A. Raider

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scores of East European Jewish immigrant families settled in farming communities '

scattered throughout New England, the Middle West, and parts of the western frontier. This article focuses on a small community of Jewish immigrant farmers in the Connecticut River Valley known as the Rockville Settlement. One of the period's most successful Jewish farming communities, the Rockville Settlement - largely unnoticed by American Jewish historians - merits scholarly investigation.' What were the reasons for the settlement's success? How did its residents cope with the hardships of rural life? What impact did the Rockville Settlement have on other residents of the Connecticut River Valley? This study traces the Rockville Settlement's early development. It also examines the acculturation of the Rockville settlers, particularly what Americanization meant to them as well as to sympathetic and antipathetic observers of Jewish immigrants in the early decades of the twentieth century.

Farming and Productivization

In 1897, Jacob and Shifra Rosenberg, a Russian-Jewish immigrant couple newly arrived in the United States, bought a piece of land near Crystal Lake, approximately fifteen miles northeast of Hartford, Connecticut. The Rosenbergs were the first Jewish farmers in the vicinity of a Connecticut rural area known as Rockville-Vernon- Ellington. According to the "Ledger of the Jeshurun Society of Russ- ian Refugees Who Settled on Farms in the Rockville-Vernon- Ellington Area(' a Hebrew document written in 1905 by Samuel Levine, the Rosenbergs created their homestead "through the labor of their own hands and by the sweat of their brow!'" In the next few