During the Civil War, Gen. Ulysses Grant Began Expelling Southern Jews—Until Lincoln Stepped In
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The 1862 letter was short, but its meaning was clear—and devastating. “You are hereby ordered to leave the city of Paducah, Kentucky, within twenty-four hours,” it read.
Cesar Kaskel couldn’t believe it. He had emigrated to the United States after leaving Prussia, where he was discriminated against and financially ruined because he was Jewish. Now, the Union Army was telling him he was being expelled from his new home and his business for the same reason.
Kaskel was about to become one of the Jewish people ordered to leave towns in Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee during the Civil War. They were victims of General Orders No. 11, a discriminatory wartime declaration issued by General Ulysses S. Grant .
Grant's decree was “the most sweeping anti-Jewish regulation in all of American history,” historian and rabbi Bertram W. Korn noted in his book American Jewry and the Civil War.
Though the 1862 orders were aimed at cotton speculators, they gave all Jews—speculators or no—just 24 hours to leave their homes, businesses and lives behind. It was the culmination of a wave of anti-Semitism that swept through the United States in the year before the Civil War… and a decision that would haunt Grant for the rest of his life.
An illustration depicting Paducah, Kentucky in the 1860s.
Buyenlarge/Getty Images
By 1860 there were an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 Jewish people in the United States, up from 15,000 in 1840. That dramatic rise was the result of poverty and discrimination in Germany and Central Europe, where Jewish people were often excluded from trade, prevented from marrying and subject to pogroms and other violence.
The United States offered the promise of economic and social freedom. But Jewish immigrants were not always welcomed into their new communities, especially in the North. New Jewish enclaves in American cities were viewed with suspicion by those who recognized neither their language nor their religion. Once the Civil War broke out, things got even worse.
In the North, popular newspapers disparaged Jews as secessionists and rebels and blamed them for destroying the national credit. And though some Jews occupied high-ranking roles within the Confederacy, anti-Semitism was widespread in the South as well.
Almost as soon as the war began, illegal trade and smuggling between North and South started. Though the Union blockaded Southern ports, goods still made their way over the border, and profiteers continued their trade illicitly, especially as the price of cotton rose due to the embargo. Not only did illicit trading flout Union rules, but it threatened the war effort itself.
“When cotton came from Confederate territory,” writes historian Ludwell H. Johnson, “there was always the danger that it would be paid for in supplies or munitions.” The black market was everywhere, and it frustrated both governments. And there was a seemingly perfect scapegoat: Jews, who had been stereotyped in the press as avaricious and opportunistic.
General Ulysses S. Grant, one of the Union Army’s most influential officials, was infuriated by the cotton smuggling that damaged the Union’s ability to squeeze the South economically. In his eyes, the perpetrators were all Jews. This wasn’t borne out by evidence—though Jewish people were active as peddlers, merchants and traders, and some undoubtedly made money speculating on cotton, they did not make up the bulk of the black marketeers.
In August 1862, as Grant was preparing the Union Army to take Vicksburg, he commanded his men to examine the baggage of all speculators, giving “special attention” to Jews. In November, he told his subordinates to refuse to let Jews receive permits to travel south of Jackson, Mississippi or travel southward on the railroad.
For Grant, prejudice against Jews mingled with personal animosity. He began his crackdown after discovering a Jewish family’s involvement in a scheme to help use his father’s name to get a legal cotton trading permit in Cincinnati.
General Ulysses S. Grant & his staff, circa 1864.
Mathew Brady/Buyenlarge/Getty Images
On December 17, 1862, Grant went even further. That’s when he issued an official order expelling Jews from the Department of the Tennessee, a massive administrative division under his command that included parts of Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee. He called the Jews “a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders” and gave them 24 hours to get out.
The order targeted Jews as a group, singling them out based on their religion. And though news of the order was hindered by Confederate raids and was not well-enforced, it slowly trickled out to Jews in and beyond the affected area.
News of the order horrified Jewish Americans. Among them were the approximately 30 Jewish merchants of Paducah, all of whom who were expelled from the city along with their wives and children. Two of the men being banished were former Union soldiers.
As they prepared to leave their homes and board a river boat away from Paducah, Cesar Kaskel and others telegraphed President Abraham Lincoln in a desperate attempt to spread the word about Grant’s actions. After their forced departure Kaskel went to Washington to protest the order in person. There, he approached Congressman John A. Gurley of Ohio, who agreed to accompany him to the White House. The men hurried to Lincoln.
But though an increasing number of people were learning of Grant’s orders in the South, the breakdown in communications meant that Lincoln had not previously heard about his general's decision to expel Jewish people from the Department of the Tennessee. He was so shocked by the order that he asked his staff for confirmation. Once they confirmed that it was real, he revoked it.
An 1882 cartoon depicting Grant courting Jewish voters by crying "crocodile tears" over the persecution of Jews in Russia while Order No. 11 hangs in the background.
Library of Congress
News of the order continued to spread, and though some editorials sided with Grant, most condemned its targeting of Jews. “Men cannot be condemned and punished as a class, without gross violence to our free institutions,” wrote the New York Times a month after the order. But even that editorial spread anti-Semitic tropes about Jews, comparing them to Shylocks and complaining about the potentially destructive power of wealthy Jews. Grant’s order helped stir up an ugly undertone of American life that isolated and damaged Jews who had come to the United States in search of an elusive equality.
The discriminatory order was quickly squelched, but the general never forgot it. In fact, he spent a lifetime trying to atone for it. When he was running for president in 1868, he confessed that the order “was issued and sent without any reflection and without thinking.” In office, he named more Jews to public office than ever before, and promoted the human rights of Jewish people abroad, protesting pogroms in Romania and sending a Jewish diplomat to object.
“During his administration,” writes historian Jonathan D. Sarna, “Jews moved from outsider to insider status in the United States, and from weakness to strength.” But though Grant did what he could to atone for his discriminatory order, he doubtless contributed to the anti-Semitism of the 19th century.
Tags
Who is online
105 visitors
I wonder how many Americans are aware of this....
The irony of it is overwhelming.
Later in life Grant attoned for this tragic error.
Call me unaware Kavika.....
War makes people do strange and stupid things..... Grant was never known as being indecisive on anything. Quite the contrary, he was known for making spot decisions on incomplete information.
I didn't know that either. Get smarter here!
But some say the north could do no wrong in the Civil War
Apparently not.
The north did plenty of things wrong.
War creates the stage for inhumanity based on both propaganda and reason.
Well, apparently, they did
This is the first I've heard of it. Jews were persecuted everywhere.
Very interesting piece of history Kavika.
Thank you.
While the paternal side of my family was facing their own trials from the US Government, of which, you as the foremost of elders and wise men and women around here know more about than I do. The maternal side of my family had not arrived at the time of this story and would not for a couple more decades.
This bit of history is best not forgotten.
To be honest, I have been surprised at the lack of historical knowledge which is presented in many cases.
When I read one of your articles, I know I will learn something new and accurate.
Thank you again.
I find this all very shocking. I had no idea.
Hate defies logic.
Thanks for the history lesson. A sad one indeed.
It is the first time I've heard of it.
Here is the question in my mind:
Do we teach our children that General Ulysses S. Grant, who was the Union General that finally won the war for the north, which preserved the United States and ended the institution of slavery in the US & later became President, also happened to issue an anti-Semitic order.?
Or
Do we teach our children that General Ulysses S. Grant was an anti-Semite who happened to be a Union general & President of the US.?
You teach all of it Vic, and you teach it from the both the standpoint of that time in history and the lens of the present.
Just like dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The views of 1945 have to be respected against what is known today and the views 75 years later.
I agree. Thanks for making the point so I don't have to make it. My question is about where the emphasis is placed. That is the distinction between traditional history and the more recent revisionist history. Was the sum total of Grant more positive or negative?
Naturally the person writing of the historical topic can't but help but interject their point of view. It is the obligation of the reader to research the point in question to determine how they feel about it gathering all the details they can.
I'm sure the British have different feelings about our founding fathers. I know Native Americans have a very different view of American History than what is/was taught in schools.
As far as Grant being a solid military tactician, I would say yes, but a very bloody one given the nature of war at that time. As president he took the job of reconstruction as important, and made a solid push for national unity. I would have to judge the sum of his work as positive.
I couldn't agree more!
An excellent point. My cousins are in from England and they are not even taught American History until college, where they can blame the loss of "The Colonies" and yes that is still how they refer to us, on the madness of King George. They tend to focus more on how they almost got us back in the war of 1812. So Fly, your point is correct. History is told in the eye of the beholder.
I'm with you. I think we should teach the good and the bad so that maybe we can actually learn from history instead of repeating it
IMO, you teach the truth, good or bad.
In Grant's case, he atoned for this racist act for much of his life.
Always! (He also had an arguably corrupt administration as President and paid a heavy toll in human life in defeating Robert E Lee)
In Grant's case, he atoned for this racist act for much of his life.
Then you might also agree, that overall the emphasis on Grant should be on winning the Civil War?
Actually, I believe that each person should make their own determination on Grant.
Of course, but we are talking about how history is to be taught, aren't we?
If history is taught with emphasis on one or more of his attributes, good or bad, then it's really isn't neutral is it.
It no longer is. That is the difference between the history taught to us once by Samuel Eliot Morison and the history now taught to our children courtesy of Howard Zinn.
It never was neutral, Vic....Nor was it accurate.
What do you mean?
As this article points out, Grant had a profound affect on Jews with this order 11...Is that taught in Grants history?
No, it isn't. Thus it's not accruate by omission.
You are absolutely correct. That was, I assume part of why you seeded it - to present more historical facts. I agree all of that needs to be taught, and under the headline of Grant being the General that ended the bloodiest conflict in US history. The issue today is where we put the emphasis when we teach our children about extremely important historical figures - individuals that had a major impact on the history of the US.
You can rule this off topic, but I'd like to ask how a historic icon such as George Armstrong Custer should be taught? He had a major impact on Native Americans and US history. I'm not sure many know what it was.
is article points out, Grant had a profound affect on Jews with this order 11...Is that taught in Grants history
Yes. It is. Ron Chernow's pop biography that was recently published covered it pretty extensively . I think it's covered in every significant study of Grant's life, except for his own autobiography. He omitted a few things that embarrassed him, like drinking and this order, while otherwise being pretty unsparing of his own mistakes.
If we are talking high school level surveys of history, everything can't be covered and then all attempts at teaching any type of history to students is inaccurate by omission. Students aren't taught Grant's history. They rush through the civil war and Reconstruction and Grant is basically the general who won the war, and that's it. There's simply way too much to digest in a single year studying the entire course of American history to cover any topic with anything other than brevity. Witness the recent discussion on this site when many Americans were unfamiliar with the issue Americans argued over in the run up to the Civil War.
My comment was about history taught in high school. Advanced history studies do show it.
Unfortunetly U.S. history is, IMO, a paint brush course with a couple of high lights. It would behove us to teach a much more accurate history to our high school students. If it requries more than one year, so be it.
Once into college taking history courses doesn't seem to be the ''go to'' course, unless it is going to be ones profession. Thus if you aren't a student of history this type of information never reaches you.
Yes, it is off topic but an interesting question and piece of history. Some time back, a year or more ago, one of NT members did an excellent series on Custer centered around the ''Battle of Greasy Grass'' (Little Big Horn)....
Instead of getting into here on this article I'd like to address it in a separate article in the near future. Perhaps I can find in the history of the prior series written by one of our members.
I look forward to it.
When I was going to school here in the state of Maryland we had 2 years of ancient history in Jr High School (Middle School today), 2 years of American history (9th and 10th grades). Then "Modern World History" in 11th grade.
As I enjoy history across the globe I continue my learning on almost a daily basis.
I have stopped being surprised at how ignorant many are of even the most common aspects of recent history.
But hey, it can be both a teaching and learning moment. IMHO the important this is not to forget it or let political leanings taint it.
Absolutely agree per my comment to Sean.
I recently had a discussion with a poster here with adamant and shockingly ignorant accounts of 20th century. Not obscure history, but common knowledge.
The most amazing part is, this person lives in the same state I do. The state of Maryland. Maybe the poster didn't grow up in the state of Maryland? Maybe not all Maryland school systems are "created equal"?
Just odd.
I recall that discussion. It was one of those "just sit back, read and learn" articles.
They definitely are not. Schools in Montgomery County back in the '70s vs schools in Southern Maryland were probably like night and day. And Cumberland Hancock area was probably very different as well.
It was written by Bruce, a southern conservative and it was called "Custer was an idiot. Kavika here is part one to get you started:
btw, Bruce is a huge history buff, so his information is really spot on.
Perrie, I am honored that you are addressing your comments to me. I am looking forward to Kavika doing something on one of the most charismatic figures in American history, however my interest in the fearless General involves his legacy, which was decisive for Native Americans.
That is understandable and yes I grew up in Montgomery County, albeit, always on the other side of the railroad tracks.
My understanding is the poster is from Baltimore. It could be true, but I am having a hard time understanding the differences in school systems between the two.
Than again, I am open to learn.
I know people who grew up in PA and weren't taught the things I was taught. Like so many PA school kids know that William Penn was the founder of PA (they should know that) but they don't know why and how the state got its name (they should know, that, too) and why Penn founded his colony (really important)
I grew up in Montgomery County as well.
What a personally interesting post to me.
***warning side track alert***
Of all things I have a copy of my maternal grandparents property deed. The stone house was built in 1629 and even had an "escape hatch" off the attic roof, which was the 3rd floor. Two battles of the Brandywine were fought there and we found many artifacts.
As a kid the attic is the room you wanted to sleep in, as it was filled with mystery and discovery.
The deed goes back to King George and then to William Penn and down to my grandparents.
Fascinating.
Okay, back to regularly scheduled programming...sorry.
Don't be sorry! That is some fascinating stuff! I lived in Chester County from age 3 to 10. Lots of history there if you're willing to look for it
Oh wow, the best hoagies on the planet came from a lopsided looking deli in Kennet Square. Then we would finish our trip going the other way back across Rt1 through Unionville and then take a right off to Farm country with our bags of hoagies for us and our grandparents.
Lot of fond memories there.
I'll tell you before I get into writing the article that one person that will be in it is Joe Medicine Crow.
Medicine Crow walked on at age 102, in 2016. He was the last living connection to the Little Big Horn. His great grandfather ''White man Runs Him'' was a scout for Custer. And the scouts would gather and reminisce about the battle with first-hand knowledge. Medicine Crow would, as a child, be at these gathering.
Joe Medicine Crow was an American legend. The last of the Crow War Chiefs, WWII hero, author, speaker, and historian.
Hoka Hey
Nobody deserves an article to be written about him more than Joe Medicine Crow:
As I say, I look forward to it. Suggestion: Wasn't there an Indian woman who punctured the dead Custer's ears? Supposedly "so that he would finally hear us. Maybe you could find out about that...fact or fiction.
Then, you know, I want to add to the historical significance of the event. (my two cents worth)
And the 20th century..
And the 21st century...
One of Grant's many flaws. Mary Lincoln described him this way: "He is a butcher and is not fit to be at the head of an army. Yes, he generally manages to claim a victory, but such a victory! He loses two men to the enemy's one. He has no management, no regard for life."
BUT there is not much argument about the fact that the US ultimately needed a Ulysses S. Grant to bring that bloody affair to an end. The emphasis needs to be placed there. All the rest gets taught as a footnote!
I would agree.
Unfortunately another form of propaganda has, in my mind, resulted in anti-Semitic tendencies among N/A Jews. Yes, I actually said that, but probably a topic for another discussion.
I don't understand the comment Dave. Are you talking about self hating Jews?
Perrie, first I think this should move to another discussion.
Secondly, I do not know if they are self hating or not, but I consider those who have both forgotten the precarious position Israel is in and have fallen for the Palestinian propaganda, whether willfully or by ignorance, as anti-Semitic. They are condemning their own people to the sea.
Any Jew (like Bernie Sanders) who supports BDS, which has the goal of the destruction of Israel, and has been correctly declared by Germany, and by Canada's Trudeau to be antisemitic, IS "condemning their own people to the sea."
There you go right there.
It's rare that I hear something from American history that-
A) I've never heard of before, and
B) I'm so surprised that I have never heard it before.
THIS, is one of those times!
It's no surprise that a country's heroes are in historical remembrance whitewashed of their flaws.