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 support@jstor.org.

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