The overwhelming majority of Jews who came to America before the Revolutionary War did not have an extensive Jewish education. One exception was Manuel Josephson (1729-1796), who was born and educated in Germany. His extensive knowledge of Judaism qualified him to serve on the beis din of Congregation Shearith Israel in New York. Even though he was an Ashkenazic Jew, he was so highly esteemed that he was elected parnas (president) of the congregation in 1762. He was given the honor of being chassan Bereishis in 1760. On Lag B’Omer of 1759 he married Rachel (Ritzel) Judah. The Judahs were prominent Jews who had resided in New York City since before the Revolution.
Manuel made his living as a merchant. During the French and Indian War (1754-1763), also referred to as the Seven Years’ War, he was engaged in trading at Fort Edward, a British installation. On August 9, 1757 the French captured Fort Henry, another British stronghold located at the southern end of Lake George. The terms of surrender included the withdrawal of the garrison to Fort Edward, with specific terms that the French military protect the British from the Indians as they withdrew from the area.
In one of the most notorious incidents of the French and Indian War, the Indian allies of the French violated the agreed terms of surrender and attacked the British column, which had been deprived of ammunition, as it left the fort. On August 10, Josephson, who was at Fort Edward, wrote two letters to Hyman Levy, another Jewish merchant who did business with the British during the war. In his second letter Manuel described in detail the horrors of what the Indians had done.
Fort Edward, Aug’t 10th, I757.
Mr. Hyman Levy,
Sir:I wrote you this morning; the post came in this morning but had no letters. Fort Wm. Henry went over to the French yesterday morning at seven o’clock with a very honourable capitulation, all their baggage, arms, colours, etc. The French Gen’l [Montcalm] made a present of a six pounder to Coll. Young in testimony of his gallant behaviour. They were to have been escorted by some of the French troops till they came safe here, but how much has that promise been violated! When our troops came away this morning safe from the French, the cruel Indians (of which ’tis said they have near 3000) fell in the first place among them, took out the women from among them, stript, and afterward scalpt them with their children and sucklings. Almost every young lad and boy among them shared the same most cruel fate…. Mr. Williamson, engineer, is not yet come in; Farrell, the sutler of the Thirty-Five Regiment, and his wife, both killed and scalped. Lieut. Harburt is likewise missing. In short, you never saw such havock and condition the poor people come in camp. Lyon came in safe amongst the rest but much fatigued….
Manuel Josephson[i]
Josephson was a strong-willed man who was not afraid to take action when he felt things were not being properly done. Despite having been elected president of the congregation in 1762, “he had trouble with the synagogal leaders a number of years later. He was accused, in 1769, of opposing the ‘good rules and orders instituted by our community’ and was threatened with expulsion.”[ii]
What those “good rules and orders” were, which he violated is not disclosed. The time of “penance” was set at one month. At the expiration of that time no penance was forthcoming and a further extension of one month was granted. The results are unknown, except that after the deadline the officers agreed to “prepare a draft for a new Table of Laws.” Apparently those who had rebelled were either vindicated or perhaps were even justified in their opposition to some of the “good rules and orders” previously enacted.
Josephson seems to have been a man of persistence in his convictions. A few years later, he and two others were cited for their non-conformance to the “ninth hascamah” [a regulation, the type of which we do not know] and consequently were deprived of all Synagogal honors, (and) their vote in the Synagogue, until they would make satisfactory concessions. No further details as to the final outcome are recorded in the Congregational minutes. Perhaps the conflicts in the Synagogue were of a ritual nature, arising of differences between the Ashkenazic and the Sephardic customs and the attitude of the Ashkenazim to the Sephardic form of Communal Government and their rigid enforcement of certain communal laws such as absolute decorum during worship services.[iii]
Advertisement