“Gives to Bigotry No Sanction”: The Dangers of Continued Misinterpretation of Washington’s Letter to the Jews of Newport

Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II Volume 22 Article 10 2017 “Gives to Bigotry No Sanction”: The Dangers of Continued Misinterpretation of Washington’s Letter to the Jews of Newport Michelle Runyon Santa Clara Univeristy, Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Runyon, Michelle (2017) "“Gives to Bigotry No Sanction”: The Dangers of Continued Misinterpretation of Washington’s Letter to the Jews of Newport," Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II: Vol. 22 , Article 10. Available at: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol22/iss1/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact . Runyon: “Gives to Bigotry No Sanction” “Gives to Bigotry No Sanction”: The Dangers of Continued Misinterpretation of Washington’s Letter to the Jews of Newport Michelle Runyon In 2017, the United States is confronting an uglier part of its heritage, one of bigotry against non-Christians. As activists search for examples of early religious pluralism in the United States, several hail George Washington’s letter to the Jews of Newport, Rhode Island as a shining example of early religious freedom in practice. Exactly 227 years ago, George Washington made a promise to the Newport Jewish congregation, saying that Jews would be protected in the new United States and be free to practice their religion without fear of persecution. Washington’s words have been hailed by modern activists as a start to American pluralistic democracy, especially in response to virulent anti-Islamic prejudice. However, this ahistorical interpretation ignores the complex legal reality that American Jews faced following the American Revolution, through the early nineteenth century. In “The Political Rights of the Jews in the United States: 1776– 1840” (1958) Stanley F. Chyet found that the Constitution of the United States granted universal religious freedom at the federal level, but political rights at the state level were much more ambiguous, often denying Jews the right to hold public office or vote. Several scholars, such as Fritz Hirschfield in George Washington and The Jews (2005) and Vincent Phillip Muñoz in “George Washington on Religious Liberty” (2003), have examined how George Washington interacted with Jews. However, no one has combined knowledge of early Jewish legal rights and the actions of George Washington, especially regarding the words written in his letter to the Jews of Newport, to analyze their significance for Jewish-American history and religious pluralism in the United States more broadly. Washington’s letter to the Jewish congregation of Newport has been held up as an early model of religious pluralism, yet this acceptance is not reflected in the mixed legal protections early Jewish-Americans received. This contradiction is perpetuated in the present day, as various contemporary groups continue to interpret the letter to suit their own particular purposes. Most early American Jews came first to the British and Dutch colonies after fleeing Brazil in 1654 after the Portuguese regained control of the colony from the Dutch. The Dutch were much more tolerant than the Portuguese, who expelled all Historical Perspectives, Series II, Volume XXII, 2017 Published by Scholar Commons, 2017 1 Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II, Vol. 22 [2017], Art. 10 Jews who refused to convert to Catholicism by threat of prosecution by the Inquisition. Even in the British and Dutch colonies, which tended to be more tolerant, Jews were still denied many rights of citizenship. Not all colonies practiced religious tolerance even towards all Protestants, not to mention nonChristians. Maryland’s Toleration Act of 1649 was particularly hostile towards religious minorities who did not believe in Trinitarian Christianity. The law legalized the death penalty for those who blasphemed against the Trinity or related doctrine. The Pennsylvania Assembly of 1682 was less extreme, but still required all civil officers to be Protestants. Generally, Jews could obtain permanent residence, but not the right to vote or hold political office.1 Additionally, Jews were denied when they petitioned to fight in the New Amsterdam army during the late seventeenth century. 2 This was a large blow to many Jews, as they sought to gain social status through military service. There was also a hope that Jews could “earn” political rights through providing useful service for the colonies, an important theme that dominated much of early Jewish-American history. Prior to the American Revolution, Rhode Island Jews were denied full political rights, including the free exercise of religion. Some Jews were naturalized, but only when specific Jews rendered particularly valuable services to the state. Naturalization did not carry political rights. It merely allowed Jews to have legal permanent residence and to live more as subjects to the colonial government than as citizens, with less legal autonomy than the latter. 3 Two Jews within the colonies, Aaron Lopez and Isaac Elizer, were even denied naturalization in 1761. Jews had previously been granted naturalization under the Naturalization Act of 1740, which allowed foreigners of various religious backgrounds in Britishheld territory to be naturalized to attract settlers to the small colony of Rhode Island. However, the Superior Court of Rhode Island ruled in 1761 that since Rhode Island had sufficient residents there was no need to naturalize more Jews, especially ones who already resided in the colony as Lopez and Elizer did. While 1 Stanley F. Chyet, “The Political Rights of the Jews in the United States: 1776-1840,” American Jewish Archives Journal 10, no. 1 (1958): 19–20. 2 Jacob Barsimson to Peter Stuyvesant, “Petition for Acceptance into Defense Forces,” Immigration & Communal Growth, Significant Documents Illuminating the American Jewish Experience, The Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives <http://americanjewisharchives.org/exhibits/aje/details.php?id=611&page=1>. 3 William Pencak, Jews and Gentiles in Early America: 1654–1800 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005), 100–101. 63 https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol22/iss1/10 2 Runyon: “Gives to Bigotry No Sanction” local political tensions played a role in this decision, there were also growing concerns about the impact of religious diversity in the British colonies on the future state that many hoped for. Some believed that a more diverse environment would breed (...truncated)