Letter from Abraham de Sola to Jacob Henry Joseph;February 26, 1851

Title: Letter from Abraham de Sola to Jacob Henry Joseph;February 26, 1851
Author: Abraham de Sola
Contributor: Jacob Henry Joseph
Date Created: 26 February 1851
Location(s): Philadelphia
Format: Letter. 11 page(s) on 12 sheet(s).
Type: Letter
Language(s): English
Has Format: https://colenda.library.upenn.edu/items/ark:/81431/p39k46d20/manifest.json
Link to Colenda: https://colenda.library.upenn.edu/catalog/81431-p39k46d20
Physical Characteristics: Unlined Paper; Manuscript
Is Part Of: The Jesselson Family Collection of Isaac Leeser Material
content: J H Joseph Esqr.
Dear Sir!
Many thanks for Mr Leeser's letter which I read with every feeling but of pleasure. I shall make no apology to trouble you with a further communication—perhaps a long one on this same subject, as I desire you should know all particulars, and I honestly tell you that not only have I no objection that you should inform Mr L what I say in reply to his last to you but I am quite content he should read every word following. This letter may be seen by one or by a thousand I care not, for every one may know that I have, and am again ready to aver in the most solemn manner, yes, in the name of God who made me, that I never sought to injure Mr L with his congregation—that to the best of my judgment I never did or said anything to lessen his success & promote my own—that I never had any desire to supplant him in his situation whilst I thought he stood the least chance of retaining it—that it was only with others I desired to contest it, and that throughout I entertained for him none but sentiments of kindness & sympathy— how I would not & could not write or say this much for a brother or a father did I trust know it was truth—I flatterexperienced person would not have acted differently myself I need not assure you of this. I do not say that a more but I do not truthfully say that none could have acted with more honesty of purpose, and under the former im-pressions that after the protracted & serious dissensions between Mr L & his congr. I could do him no injury to act as I did. These are protestations, say, but took at the facts.
As you know I have been in correspondence with Mr L since my arrival in this country Jany. '47. I need not look back to Mr L's earlier letters but it is now some 18 months since he told me he was not popular (generally withOctober 49 his flock & that his re-election was by no means sure. The publication of his strictures on his cong. in the Oc. the action taken by them thereupon certainly would not be calculated to Open the breach. In a lengthy letter fromOct 49 I have the full history of his Ministry in Phil. To that date. In this letter Mr L speaks of the unmerited Mr L dated & powerful persecution he had experienced from his opponents—of the impossibility of getting two thirds of therepeal of the bond law—under which condition only, Mr L writes as indeed he had publicly votes necessary for the printed in the Oc. he would take office. “As I will not sign a contract such as was offered there is only thewithdrawing fighting to the last.” Again, he says he cannot & will not yield one point, & scorns alternative of the adjunta's vote of censure. It is unnecessary to quote other paragraphs from this letter expressive of the same determination. Thus already some 15 months ago Mr L spared me of his determining not to yield to the congre-gational terms, and so long ago had Is? all the world learnt through the Oc. That the congn. had determined not to yield to Mr L's demands—witness the rejection by them of the new bye-law for Hazan, offered by Mr S Solis, and the motion to do away with the bond, which latter motion they had uniformly rejected on all other occasions16 Octr., my earliest leisure, in reply to Mr I. I took the liberty & by large majorities, as I learn from Mr C's letters. On Octr Occident, plainly telling him that I thought he had done exceedingly wrong to hold all to censure the article in the his cong. to the severe? ridicule of the world—that he had thereby laid himself under the imputation of attempting to gain by threats what he could not by persuasion & argument or influence (This was not the language of one desiring him Evil) And with respect to the bond I said that all with whom I had discussed the matter agreed that in Mr L's case he being known to them 20 years, that it was uncalled for & wrong though in the case of a stranger (or newcomer) the cong would be justified to ask it, though even there the candidates simply subscribing a declaration of willingness to be governed by existing by-laws would be preferable. I have referred to this circumstance at length because when in Phil. I wasby whom that he had heard (from whom he did not say) that I had written Mr L advising him not to sign the told I believe (but am not sure) by Mr S Solis but it matters not bond it being beneath the dignity of a minister so to do (so as to get him out of the way I suppose!) but when I had sense? of Mr L's absence from candidateship hereby I turned round and was willing to do it myself. A very pretty charge to do me injury, but false as Christianity. A concoction worthy the most rascally Jesuit around us. I am glad to know however that it did not; or could not, injure me with so right-minded a person as Mr Solis to whom I know I explained the matter though cannot be sure whether I broached it to him. The truth is as above. But a little more about this ?. I never said I would sign the bond. If elected I would ask to be excused as I do not admire it—but would not refuse signing if the retention of the place depended upon it (mind I speak of myself as a new comer) for I would not have the power of itnow has. If I signed it I should be doing nothing worse than Mr L had himself done on several occasions. Mr L The bond I maintain degrades the congregation not the minister. There are many abuses in one synagogue governmentorders a Hazan to call up to read to the Sepher a which a Hazan must at present submit to. What if a Parnass man notoriously ?. Could Mr L or any other Hazan refuse—he might get off doing so by his influence over the Parnass. I could point out to you many cases wherein Mr L according to the present system mustrulers in matters of much greater importance than signing the bond and I could show you submit to his that he has done so. This does not say that we should not agitate by mouth & pen to destroy these abuses. I believe from my little experience that a Minister would by affectionate remonstrance, & reasoning would soon (had he even a little more influence than a stick) induce his flock to do away with so useless to say the least of it, a by-law And I say further that it appears to me many would in Phil be willing to do away with the law but not for Mr Leeser. Perhaps the new incumbent might get them not to ask him. Mr L was not asked I believe for the first few years—he says because his enemies wished to serve their own purpose. But to continue with my letter In conclusion I advise Mr L to take special care what he did & above all not to write anything in his Oc. about his cong. something as absurd the idea that he should put with them because of this bond business when in '41 (I believe)ruse which he afterwards regretted, to satisfy the same thing occurred as you are perhaps aware and Mr L signed contrived by a them. In this letter I also offered to confer with you on the matter for Mr L's benefit, not doubting you would do all you3rd Dec Mr L sends me copy of intended by law tells me your interference could in his behalf & asked him permission to do so. On March 27, 1850, Mr L writes me “the die is at length would be useless, & that any would be unpalatable to him. On cast & the congregation have resolved to advertise for a successor, after having endorsed the vote of censure of the Adjunta & refusing to repeal the bond law—appointing salary & term of office for the successor. (Mr L does not write me he wanted9 April 1850) expressing my surprise a life term of office) on hearing of this fatal & decisive step I wrote Mr L ( & regret at this intelligence, stating candidly however that I did not think this determination was come to by the congregation because of the bond &c but because “their spirit was not with him” i. e. that they did not care for him and I as candidly intimated (also by a Hebrew ?) that the breach was past healing, but to prove my esteemdid he concur, get up a memorial (with Rev S M Isaacs) to be signed by the Jewish ministry generally I would, in his favor, I also asked him to point out to me how I could be of use to him. This letter brings up our corres-16. June) And here let me ask youpondence on this subject to about 2 months before the day appointed for election (viz whether it is strange I should begin to think that Mr L's chance of reconciliation or reelection was becoming more & more desperate (If I mistake not you were of opinion that Mr L would not have the least chance after hisOctober Occident) when in almost every letter for about 2 years he had told me so himself! Is it strange article in I should entertain this idea when he more than once had told me the power of his enemies was too great to allow him to suppose he would ever gain the 2/3rds he required to carry his measures, when he had informed the public that he would not take the place but on his own terms, & when they had also assured the public through the press that he should not have it but on theirs & by asking for others to fill the office (in their advertisement) showed that they cared not for him to remain—when I knew he must either disgrace himself by giving the lie to his public & private protestations or stoop to the congregation (& I had too high an opinion of his honesty to suppose he would do either) and when I could not but know that the cong would not yield to him, as they had always & uniformly upheld the bond and when I viewed in conjunction with all this the continually increasing bad feeling between Mr L & his flock his strictures, their votes of censure & determined opposition the former not trifles to a man of spirit, was I so wrong in thinking Mr L stood little or no chance of again occupying his old position. And could I desire his injury let me also ask when I strongly advised him not to make the press the vehicle for his complaints to be careful that he gave his enemies no farther advantage over him by losing temper &c. Thus far I think even Mr L will admit that I have acted aright & that my conclusions were by no means unnatural. To return On22nd April I received Mr L's reply dated 18th. He would permit my combining with Isaacs &c for the memorial “but23rd the day I received Mr he knew it would be of no avail the influence on the other side being too great.” On the L's letter I addressed Mr Isaacs stating the case & my conviction that “a respectfully worded memorial” I quote from my letter to Mr I. “to be written by you & signed by all of us” would do good, inviting him to take the initiative thinking that both from age character & influence he and not I was the man, & because he was more intimate with more26 April. I omitted to state that Mr Leeser in his letter of 10 ? me ministers than I. I received Mr I's reply dated that ? I had already offered his services as mediator which he declined as useless but made no objection to a combined action. Mr I however in this letter stated that it would now be perfectly useless. He writes “I would gladly co-operate could I we achieve any good but knowing that none can be effected our time is too valuable &c” Does this answer Mr Leeser's charge that instead of attempting to make peace I was getting up certificates” I have asked for no certificates up to this date. After such dampers from Messrs Leeser & Isaacs I thought it useless to persevere, and am of opinion now that I thought rightly. The same post that brought me Mr Isaacs letter brought me several communication from Philadelphia, informing me among other things that Mr Leeser had publicly stated I was the only person competent to succeed him (In my ignorance I thought, that Mr L not being willing longer to remain, was believed the curtain doing all he recommending me)—again that a large portion of the members desired me to apply—that certain parties had declared themselves my suppor-ters, and though there would be other candidates (one was already however even if he had not applied viz Ellis Lyon) still “there was none on the continent of America to oppose me.” Mr Leeser laughs at the idea of Mr Lyons standing any chance of success. But I who have seen much more important congregations than Philadelphia choose a ? because he had a fine voice did not think Mr Lyons so laughable an opponent especially as I heard he had family influence in Phil, which my ignorance then exaggerated, and I also know that hisbrother whose influence through his congregation I thought might be great would also canvass for him. A member of my congregation also had received a letter from his friends in Phil stating the same things. He showed me the letter I saw I must apply without loss of time. I communicated with all my friends here (you & Mrs Joseph were then absent from Montreal, and one & all advised me as he had done—ridiculing any objections. They said “Mr Leeseren parenthese) cant be so unreasonable as to find fault with you ( I did not say that he would, at me remark for seeking for a situation he cannot & will not longer hold. To suppose that the congregation will yield to himIf the place had not been advertised he not being generally liked and not being altogether in the wrong right, is absurd. & you solicited to apply, you might then hesitate. But now, hesitate, & others will not.” Such was the language of my friends both here & elsewhere. I confess it was not without its effect on me. But what had greater effect on me was10th April already referred to as that wherein he gives me leave to combine with Isaacs for the memorial. He (Mr L) Mr L's letter of commences by telling me that all my efforts would be useless in his behalf as far as his ministry is concerned, he couldimagine the possibility of his being elected on terms agreeable to himself (and yet, let me here remark in his last not letter to you he says as much that I am the other candidates were the cause of his not being elected. What had I staid away—another would have come forward. To suppose that none would (who perhaps did not care one ? for ?) isto retire to childish & absurd But before any one had any idea of coming forward Mr L plainly says he cannot imagine the possibility of his reelection on his terms. This being the case Mr L waited he owed it to his character both as a man & a Jew private life. Again says Mr L. “My engagement is precluded by the wording of the advertisement.” Now my firm impression from the forgoing was (as it would have been I think of every imprejudiced person that Mr. L seeing he stood no chance of success gave up the contest, and that with the great encouragement held out to me, and the persuasions of my friends—honest thinking men too, I was now fully justified in doing what I heard Mr Lyons & others had already done or was caring to do—and apply for the office—informing Mr L. thereof at the same time. But I will tell you what I did presently. If I had any doubts as to the hopelessness of Mr Leesers cause the anonymous pamphlet which20th April) would have dispelled them. I would most assuredly, not at all refer to this pamphlet but that Dr David and I received (on it contains extracts of the minutes of the Cong. the truthfulness of which none has challenged. From these minutes I learned what Mr L had never informed me—that in addition to the insurmountable obstacle of the bond, there24 March/50 were other difficulties equally insurmountable (as the votes showed). Mr L had declared at the meeting of he would not be a candidate, but through Mr A Hart that unless the tenure of office was during good behaviour (for life) would remain 6 months after expiration of his present term to afford the cong. an opportunity to get a successor notthe cong settled the term at 10 years. Now would I be wrong in concluding from this circumstance withstanding which what Mr L himself wrote me “It was evident to me,” he says with reference to this meeting not this particular vote, that my dismissal from office was resolved on. So I thought. The particulars of the term of office discussion I did not learn from Mr Leeser. Now I could not think so ill of Mr L as to suppose that he would act contrary to his declaration at the meeting & accept 10 years, nor did I think, knowing that a large majority (including some who didnot to grant the life tenure, such having not ever to insist upon the bond as I afterwards heard) had determined been the policy of the Kahal, as I learn from the extracts of the minutes; ever since they first had a regular HazanNov/42) “a frequent occurrence to the election of their officers is the best check upon them.” I do because as they assert ( not desire to bear me the apologist of this assertion, but that such is the opinion of the majority of the Phil. Cong. I dont this moment sincerely believe. And in the very first letter received from Mr A Hart he informs me that in the event16 June they would of our Mr L's not being a candidate (Let Mr L know that others besides me could use this expression) on reduce the term of office probably to 3 years. From all this I become convinced that Mr L stood not the least chance of election (especially as the cong would not, as he wrote me, “even hear him in his defence”) I also thought I had a chance of being chosen—and that if I did not apply other persons—whitewashed Germans—would, leaving Lyons out of the question. Events prove my conjecture right. Mr Rosenfeld no doubt a learned & estimable man—but still as much a Portuguese Hazan as I am a German—has read as candidate in the synagogue Mikveh Israel (so I hear.) In his10th April I must not omit to state Mr Leeser told me he was then going (in the course of the week) to New Orleans and that it was “likely letter of enough that before my answer could reach him he would have left Phila.” He said moreover he could not call at23rd April immediately on Montreal as he had intended but would hasten to be back by the day of election. On 10th I addressed Mr L directing one letter to Savannah & New Orleans (he had supplied me on 10th with receipt of Mr L's of these addresses) in care J I ? as Mr L might have left Phil before he could receive my letter. If you recollect you sent me a slip of paper it came with the Oc. Whereon Mr L tells you he was not going yet, ? for a few days. I believe then it was a couple of days—perhaps one—after I had written Mr L to N. O.—where you sent me the slip. ? I then wrote another letter to Phil thinking it might reach him before he left. I don't know the date of this as it contained pretty much what I wrote in the one to N. O. I did not keep a copy of it. Both letters were written in the desire not to do anything without Mr L's knowledge, & so, afterwards, I would not have moved a single step without his knowledge & he might have guided me for his advantage, but that—he would not. In these letters I told Mr L that I was convinced now that his connection with his congregation would be at last severed. In this case I had determined I told Mr L to take adopt the advice of my friends & to write (which I did by the same post which took Mr L's letter) to Mr Hart acquainting him with my desire to bein case Mr L was not & only in such case. Mr L says in his last letter considered a candidate for the office to you that had I truly desired to ? consult him I should have written to no one (not to Mr Hart Mr L means I suppose) before applying to him. I never ? wished to consult Mr L as to the propriety of making a qualified application The propriety of this step under the circumstances appeared to me to be too evident. I had no doubt of its proprietyfor his advantage, not to tell me what & therefore did not ask Mr L, I only asked him to guide me aright seems? right honorable or religious to do. Thank God, I know my duty, my eyes were opened not jaundiced. None of my friends had any doubts of the propriety of my conduct, nor had any of the Jewish Ministry withnay none has been expressed to me even by Dr Raphall himself either by pen or mouth whom I correspond— This I shall now show. The gentlemen I addressed for certificates a few days after I had written Mr L I was going ?, were Messrs Lyons Raphall & Wise. Isaacs I did not ask for any I believe, through some inadvertence. Mr Lyons, (who in ? to Mr Isaacs I forgot to say I wrote to advise about Mr L & his cong.) wrote me that he desired I would excuse his interest as he must devote it to his mother who had already bespoken it. Now if he thought it right in his brother to apply he could not think it wrong in me—and I have good reason else, to know he did not. Dr Wise writes me a very complimentary letter & would recommend me at Phil but says that his recommendation would do him me more inquiry than good desired as he was as a heretic but adds Dr W. go to Phil, let them hear your intentions show them your abilities & you will be elected—the best recommendation is your own self.” Subsequently Rev D. A De Sola (as just and good a man as any of us) approves highly my design and bids me God speed. Rev Ansel ? of New York most heartily wished me (when in N. Y) success. Rev S M Isaacs after waiting ? that “all we could & might have done (when we corresponded about the memorial).is ?dedly had been destroyed by the congregation pamphlet” adds “your intention to become a candidate correct” and after some characteristic kind remarks adds “let me at once assure you of my readiness to serve you. Your competition is I suppose Ellis Lyon &c &c. Rev David Meldola chief Rabbi of the Portuguese congregation, London before and often he had written Mr L offering his services to make peace between him and the congregation most earnestly wishes my success and earnestly & affectionately advises me to do all I can for myself. I don't know whether Mr L may consider this quote compatible with the letters Mr Meldola wrote him. I think it is. He would like to see Mr L remain if possible & so would I. He does not think I22nd Novr. last, about the same time he addressed Mr L. I should also state Mr Meldola has heard all particulars from Mr Leeser am wrong, however, in doing what I have done. Nor do I. His last letter to me on this subject was written Here there were some of our most prominent & respectable ministers opposing my application. Surely Mr L will not say they are all Baals prophets—he the only true one. How they thought it would have injured Mr L they would not have advised as they did. They were quite aware of all attending circumstances. Dr Raphall writes me2nd May) he enclose a testimonial which he hopes, will meet my views, but can only offer one his influence in Phil ( in case Mr L declares his intention not to accept the place even if elected. (Dr R apparently was not then awarehad refused accepting office except under conditions frequently & ? absolutely ?) how declining that Mr L to use his influence in my behalf but under certain conditions—to which only the latter amounts. (The letter I have, & is at Mr L service should he ever wish to see it—during this is not tantamount to “writing me not to apply for Mr L's place” as Mr L says the Dr told him he did. This letter is the only one I have heard of the Dr since & I will leave it to any one to decide whether it contains one word recommending me not to apply. Besides Dr Raphall could not have written to advise me not to do a thing he knew I (perhaps others) had already done, nor would he have supplied me with a testimonial the design of which as he well knew was to ? my views in Phil as I wrote him in asking for it. I did not see Dr A nor any one but a ? on arriving in New York from Montreal since I went almost immediately from the boat to the cars, but on my return to N. Y. I ? with the Dr who said you know I would do much to serve you but you must not apply for Mr Leesers place (This was after I had been in Phil, recollect, & had corresponded with Mr Hart) I said I most assuredly did not desire to take Mr L's place from him—and after stating to him Mr L's true position, I added I have not the same scruple to take it from other candidates. What are there other candidates asked the Dr, there are, I said, and I knew this when I applied or I would not have moved at all in the matter. Ok then, said Dr R that is a very different thing—that alters the case and we will say nothing more about it” No doubt Dr. R will also remember this conversation if recalled to him. ? Enough of this matter. I am at least guiltless of acting in opposition to any recommendation of the Dr for he gave me none. There was another reason why I did not delay writing Mr Hart till I heard again from Mr L after telling him I had made qualified application. It was this. I was by no means ?; my letter would18th Now before I could have got a reply from reach Mr L in Phila. He was not himself, as he wrote me on the South supposing Mr ? to have answered immediately some 6 or 8 weeks must have elapsed which wouldSabbath before 16 June. have prevented my qualifying myself as candidate by visiting Phil & reading one En passant—This is the custom in most synagogues—I had hoped & intimated as much by letter to Hart.) that ( it would have been departed from me my case but all H wrote I also must submit. Hence my visit to Phil Mr L writes you in his last My disclaimer in case he should apply was no disclaimer at all as he had written me he would not accept the terms proposed. Then if Mr L refused the terms proposed it was stating he would not be a candidate, and that others might be ? would accept the terms, and I would in such case (as I had determined) have acted on my first communication to the cong, & accepted if elected what Mr L refused. But see what I wrote to Mr Hart & the cong. and judge better or not I disclaimed my desire to oppose Mr L. In my first letter to Mr Hart sent with that to ? informed Mr Leeser thereof2.
I write, “Should Mr L solicit for himself once more their suffrages I should consider it my duty not to contest them with him but at once retire before one whose attainments & prior connection with you doubtless entitle him to your support not only before me but before all who may apply &c **I cannot but express my sincere hope that you & your present talented10 June I addressed a letter to the Hazan may yet for many years be peaceably & profitably connected together &c” And on the 11th and writes me should be recd on the meeting Phila. congregation through Mr A Hart which that gentleman acknowledged on the 16th as I had requested it should to the congregation. In this I write the cong that as I heard when in Phil Mr L of st letter written Mr Hart and add “should this prove true would probably be a candidate, I called their attention to the 1 I must beg to request that I be not put in nomination against him &c. Now if the terms just quoted from my letters did not amount to a disclaimer of candidateship were Mr L. on the field then I don't know what would. Mr L may doubt my having attached my credence to the report of his intention to accept office after what has passed, but I did nevertheless, knowing and I say this not disrespectfully of Mr L, knowing that he had before signed the bond under circumstance certain modifications16 May 1841 & Mr L' letters to me are sufficient proof of this) although (and I presume the minutes of the cong more especially of determined not to do so. But it is evident Mr L did not & does not give me credit for any honesty of purpose he had at first he views my reservation as a mere plead and does not believe that had his friends been able to do what some told me when in Phil and Mr S Solis after I had left also, they desired to do, viz so notify the terms that Mr I could become a candidate. M. L cannot believe that, under these circumstances I would have retired in his favor what I most assuredly would. The extracts from my letters to the Phil cong. may be sufficient answer to Mr L's question How could I have injured my cause by advocating him, Will not any dispassionate person at once see16 June (& before, also an intimation that I would retire did Mr L that by sending in on the day of election cool my supporters—that I might be considered as hinting that the cong stand for election—that I might hereby had not behaved as generously as they should to Mr L. & that consequently I might have disgusted those who would not grant Mr L what he wanted. This risk I would have been an idiot not to force, but I wrote so nevertheless, though I knew many might tell me that it was for Mr L to move in the matter—that I had no right to refer to him at all. I do not mean to say that it was by these means & on this occasionally that I advocated Mr L's cause—there were other occasions when I probably did myself no good to speak as I did of Mr Leeser—but I am not a Jack Brag nor is it necessary at all I should refer further to this subject at present. Mr L however probably thinks I spoke ill of him whenever I could. That he thinks me capable of hating him in my heart & doing him all the mischief I can I infer from his gratuitous remarksPerhaps if Mr De S. had written that anonymous pamphlet &c” I ask “he would have gained the influence of Mr Phillips. Let me say in justice to the Messrs Phillips that not one of them spoke to me disrespectfully or angrily of Mr Leeser, or entered into any details as to what had passed between him & his congregation. They said nothing more severe of Mr L, & I think not so much as his best friends did. But to return, Mr L'swere not able to carry for Mr L on 16 June what he wanted. This he ought, perhaps, ? know. True friends there was a small majority (as Mr L writes) willing to elect him Hazan still this very majority would not give him all he asked. So now he would have voted for the repeal of the bond law would not be willing to grant a life term of office. Some voted thinking Mr L. observed at least the compliment of being elected, since he declared he would not submit to the conditions—in short this majority were much divided in opinion & had they elected Mr L it would have amounted to nothing. Had they all been content to give Mr L all he asked what prevented them electing him & then altering the terms to suit. But instead of postponing because of the threats of certain members withdrawing, they subscribed because it was impossible to obtain two thirds of the votes for repeal of the bond which first of all Mr L required. I am warranted in this assertion by the assurance of many and by communications received from some of Mr L's staunchest supporters16 June.probably In his Mr L has therefore deceived himself as to the true cause of his want of success on last letter to you he says the reason of his new success was that “as others applied, the congregation thought his remarks were founded in mere caprice and hence would not grant them.” Mr L does not12 June thus to be influenced. And I say much here for the strength of mind & penetration of the meeting of cannot at all reconcile this assertion of Mr L with his former assertions to me that he knew his dismissal from office was resolved upon, & that he could not imagine the possibility of being re elected on termsas he wrote me long before I or anyone elected applied. Nor can I quite reconcile it with agreeable to himself in consequence of the threats & false his former assertion in this his last letter to you that it was “ representations of “certain parties that he failed. Now today that Mr L's friends sacrificed him because of the threats of withdrawal is to say that they acted with gross stupidity for they must have knownApril when too those of Mr L's opponents they would have to sacrifice him for the same reason in June would probably then attend. Therefore it seems improbably they should who could not be present in have voted with the others on this account. Mr L can rest no proof of the truth of his suspicion than theNov. Oc. remains uncontradicted reason for postponing is what he says because this statement in the who should contradict it? And is the Occident the vehicle to give such discussions to the world? And if Mr L be correct in his idea that certain parties (when I had those ? his ? friends) really did not desire his success because of young Allan's sake, then the more ? I proved to be in the remarks made above. And in this connexion? let me also state that the adoption of thepurporting to be from the minutes of the Congrg pamphlet by the congregation containing some reference to a man (and which almost looks as if the the principles of Lyola or Liguori had been ? brought into practice28th April) I again saw how when I learnt that this had been fathered by the cong (I believe on the little chance Mr L had of re-election. And because I saw this and because when Mr L told me constantly himself that he stood no chance and should as in duty bound retire, he now I may almost say hates me because I believed & read in earnest what he told me, and in this belief tried that I should have a chance as he had none. Mr Leeser would not & could not have the place himself nor did he desire I should. Hence his silence to me, as I conclude. But was this friendly magnanimous ormany others have said had Mr L after assuring me so constantly kind or candid. What would I and that he had no hopes for himself, as had he added, therefore as I have so often professed the great desire I have to bring you promnently before the public I will tell ask my friends if they cannot modify the existing conditions of office, to do all they can to forward my friend. And in the mean time I advise you to do so & so. Dont go to Phil. Dont correspond &c. Mr L says he would not advise me” why not. Why not do as much to me if he were my true friend as he did for Mr Morais after the latter had applied for Mr L's situation, and tell me through a as he told wrote a friend of Morais he would not advise him to come out here. This was written no doubt in friendly feeling, but he did not show the same friendly feeling to me. Both had equally applied. I have good cause then (and not only in this particular instance) to say as I wrote Mr Solis in very bitterness of feeling that had Mr L acted with the same candour as he Mr S had (Mr S had acquainted me a short time before the election what the intentions of Mr L's friends were for that day) that I would have then been in a very different position with respect to their congregation. And so, I solemnly assert, I ? For had Mr L said do this I would have done it—do that, & it should have been executed.which I was not Even supposing for a moment that I was the first candidate in the field is it possible Mr L could believe that Abraham De Sola had not applied, Rosenfeld Lyons Morais or others would not have done so. And he himself admits that there was or is a party desiring Mr Allan. As Mr L says so say I, They did not opposed (covertly perhaps I may add) Mr? a son ?) Hence had Leeser, so that Mick Allan ought ultimately be appointed. ( A. D. S. not been there M. Allan would. Mr L also states to you he knew beforehand that I should not succeed would be the result of my application. It would have been more candid in Mr L had he told me this before I went to Phila. And if Mr L knew this before hand he cannot with any justice say that I had ? not come forward he would have conquered—for a fact favor the fact that others were in the field before me & therefore left me no choice unless I would see some one besides Mr L or myself in the office— —if the cong had determined what the issue should be, why I nor any other candidate could control it. That my friends in England should ask Mr A Franklin to support my claims will not seem unnatural to many—but they were not so like led? or advised to do so by me. And this leads me to say how deeply indignant I felt at Mr L's insinuations (since learnt) that I supplied the Jewish papers with the various paragraphs headed Philadelphia. I solemnly assert and defy contradiction that to the Jewish Chronicle I never sent a line since the election, was first talked of, nor to the Asmonean either. I challenge either editor to say I have But let Mr Leeser claim what his false friend so unjustly aspersed? really did do, though he never boasted of any well intentioned act performed by him for Mr L. I should not have mentioned this but for the charge against me. Mr Lyons wrote me when starting his paper, asking me more than once to support it and write for it. Attached to the Occident however I would not write for it, and so wrote Mr L, I have since altered my determination because young Mr Allan who is as one of the agents for the Asmonean in Phil told me Mr L had mentioned to him (what I wrote in confidence to Mr Leeser respecting my intention not to write for the Asmonean the Asmonean. Moreover, Mr Lyons has behaved with such extreme politeness, both in respect to sending me the paper ?lously, that I may wait for it and on several occasions that I feel bound to make some return to him. But without21 April I wrote Mr Lyons that I further digression, the very day after I received the anonymous pamphlet had received it—that no doubt a paper war would now cause but I entreated him for the sake of all parties to close his columns to any & every communication on the subject of the election as it would be a disgrace (Hebrew) that his ? readers should become acquainted with these internal dissensions. I said he would not regret granting my request but that hereafter he would see cause to congratulate himself upon his moderation when he saw what anarchy had been thereby avoided. In reply Mr Lyons writes me “Your letter requesting me to withold from publishing any remarks upon the emente? between the Phil Cong & Mr L did not reach me except the short notice of the pamphlet alluded to was in ?, but it was so guardedly worded that not the slightest inference could be drawn by parties not knowing of the publication of the ? as to what the Asmonean alluded. Mr L adds that altho' he owed nothing to Mr Leeser for courtesystill he would not suffer private in ushering the Asmonean before the Jewish public, ?ique to interfere &c” But Mr L published a Review of a Review (from kind & honorable motives there can be no doubt, yet I have reason to believe that that production did Mr L considerable harm. This was not writing scraps for the Jewish papers against Mr L. I must not omit to state in this connection that in writing Mr Lyon about some business matter connected with the Asmonean (I believe among other things I gave him Mr Aschers name as subscriber at that year's request (I told Mr L just as I told all the world at the time that I was applying for the office of Phila.—this was the extent of my information to him. Mr Lyon very kindly however added some complimentary & recommendatory remarks—of the ? was written by Mr Lyons not by me, but a single ? communication did I send to the Jewish papers on this subject nor Mr L cant be surprised that I should acquaint Mr Lyons what he would have heard from Phil. and apart from my letter to Mr Hart I no secret of my intentions & wishes—Had I deemed them dishonorable I might have done so. I therefore wrote Mr S. Solis (before I went to Phil) with whom I was slightly acquainted in England—the only one I knew ever so slightly in Phil—and whom I knew to be a zealous & able1 May I think) that should supporter of Mr L, both in the meeting room & in the Occident I told wrote Mr S ( Mr L persist in his intention to retire from office,” I hoped that he (Mr Solis) would consider my next worthy his support. I have made this communication so very long that I feel I am trespassing on your kindness & should conclude. Still I must ask leave to touch briefly upon a few more subjects requiring notice. When in Phila I sought not to do, what is usual for candidates to do under the present wrong system—to canvass the Cong. I went these avowedly to qualify myself as a candidateonce & preaching in the Syng again. To ? I would not defend, hence apart from suffering by reading Sabbath here. I did not conceal from slight indisposition I read with less gusto than I would on an ordinary why I went—hence I plainly told them in Synagogue what my intents of the office were & how I would discharge them should I ever be their Minister. Some comprehensive minded individuals and being of course very unprejudiced thought I reflect on Mr Leeser because I said it was the duty of a Minister to visit his flock, which Mr L. usually did not, and which I knew at the time I was speaking as the dog who now sits at my feet does. Haugh?! Fortunately people are not all equally thin skinned But having read once I resisted all importunities (which were not a few) both of my new found friends and Mr L's supporters also (Mr S Solis also advised my reading again) and to the disappointment of many I would not read or preach again, but left Phil just in time to go to Lyn in N. York onFriday Evening—That I did not do myself justice hereby I know just as my friends told me, for the times are so very different form the London Minhag which we here follow for other reasons—but enough, I paid ? to those hospitable friends who made my stay in Phil so pleasant—went to see Girard College. Fine arts exhibition, & some of the lions of the Quaker-city, and left to make a few days stay in N. York where I had not yet been able to stay to see my many friends there. Even from N. Y I hurriedly departed. I wanted to get back to my charge & my books. As far as my interests were concerned I made a careless stay in Philadelphia. But no matter let me conclude my notice of Mr Leesers letter. I made no assertion to Mr S Solis that the above or what else I could say what would I justify. Mr L writes he was Hazan27th Septr and it would been time enough (for me) to apply when he had withdrawn. But did Mr L. consider when he till 16th June, 3 months before Mr. L time expired. An application in September I might wrote this. The election was fixed for naturally conclude would meet with the answer. Sir you are three months too late. We have appointed one who applied at the time we advertised. “then” writes Mr L, my influence would have been at his disposal. Would it have been too much in Mr L ? was, till my application, my true friend writing to me, (after stating as he had that he had no hope of election) Do you apply when my term is expired, & my influence shall be at your 'disposal.” I of course, felt the absence of so friendly an act. Mr Leeser writes I was “desirous' to get his place (? & at the same time ? to retain his good opinion. “but adds ML” this was impossible” Why so, I ask, I did not make or in my way promote the state of ill feeling between Mr L & his congregation. It was not through my influence that the Cong. outvoted Mr L (for he says their conduct amounted to depriving him of his office) Why should Mr L have formed a bad opinion of me because I was desirous of having what he would not. Mr Leeser does not say I have same against him past forgiveness, I solemnly assert that I never sinned against him at a “with in thought, and if I did in deed, it is unknown to me. This will be my unchangeable conviction” till my last hour, I do not say I may not have unintentionally erred in one or two trivial matters, but for the life of me I cannot see, after ? all I have done not now only but a ? times, I cannot at all see that I did him any serious harm. I am convinced that had I never lived Mr L would not in consequence have been restored. This has been myOctober 1849—a sorrowful one it was, and truly sorry am I even now to know it. conviction since I can in all truth say I had rather see Mr Leeser retain his situation, than that I should be elected or any other divine man chosen. “But I must acknowledge,” continues Mr L, “that I have been greatly disappointed in him Mr. R. S.” But have I had no cause to be disappointed in Mr L. I am sure I have. Let me read one most trifling circumstance only, and I am strongly of opinion, unless I am even to a greater extent mistaken, that Mr L will admit, he would not have so acted in a cool moment. In his notice of the16 June (see Occident of July 50) Mr L in an article worthy the ? of New York meeting of and not Mr Leeser, is guilty of a most gross & petulent attack upon me. Well do I recollect now the feelings of surprise pain & indignation with which I read it but now I regard it only as a proof of Mr Leesers impetuosity which leads him to say & write what he must afterwards regret. But let me ? refer briefly to this article. Mr L says “Mr Rosenfeld we understand only applied in case the present minister was not a candidate.” Is it possible Mr L's informant did not tell him that on the16th of June the day appointed for the election I also sent in a letter to the Congregation stating that I desired not to be put in nomination ? Mr L a candidate! This letter of mine Mr Hart assured me on its receipt, should be read to the Cong. I was therefore a matter of sufficient notoriety. Why then say for Rosenfeld more than he said for me. Overlook both, but don't do an injustice to one. That Rosenfeld16th June than I, it is impossible for Mr L to prove for to use Mr L's own words “He behaved better on knew (that is Mr Rosenfeld knew) that his reservation or disclaimer was no disclaimer, since he also knew that I i. e. Mr Leeser would not apply under the conditions “as all the world did. Why then favor Rosenfeld more than De Sola by recording to the credit of the ? former what the other also should have received credit for and would had Mr Leeser when he then wrote been the Mr Leeser of other cooler moments. Hereby Mr L caused me to think what others have also thought, that in his anger he desired to injure me. For ? acct the election had not then been held,but postponed, consequently this implied charge of a want of consideration for Mr L & some other inuendos equally unfounded & uncalled for notice presently were calculated to do me harm with some in Phila. Mr De S. ? Mr L in the Occident was the only one of the candidates who had been to Phil &c during the late absence of Mr Leeser I was not the only one who thought that had Mr L left out the words during the late absence of Mr Leeser it would have been more fair & dignified on his part since some not acquainted with the true state of affairs might have imagined that I went to Phil, knowing it was not correct to go there, & not desiring to meet Mr L, went behind his back, covertly slyly like a thief. Those who know me ? well imagine how my heart beat, & ears tingled where I thus read & thought. Instead of avoiding Mr L I did all I could to see him. I delayed going to Phil. as long as possible, though you know certain parties not members of the congregation telegraphed me that it was important I should go at such a suchPentecost, which I nevertheless did not mind but waited a time—again that I should go for as long as I could consistently with Mr Hart's recommendation so that I might see Mr L, who, I thought would by that time be returned. And indeed the answer to my particular inquiries; at Mr L's residence also I was told he was daily expected. As I before told you I would not to please friends, or teazeSabbath in Phil though strongly recommended so to do but I wrote a few lines enemies stay to read another and if I forget not also told the lady I saw at Mr l' house, to inform Mr L I should stay a few days in New York so that I might see him, I think I said how long I should stay & I asked him to telegraph me as soon as he arrived as I desired much to see him. I do not know whether Mr L did arrive while I was in N. Y. but had we met, I think we should not have been so many months alienated to come twice. The Oc says and his (my) testimonials which were extensively circulated (among the voters only I believe) in a hand bill (Either I did not yet know the meaning of hand bill or I was right in supposing) Mr L intended it as a sneer on my circulars, which in Europe or say England it is always the custom to send e. g. Dr Raphall sent them when he applied for the lectureship at the Dukes Place Synagogue in London. All the candidates did when applying for the office of Hazan in London. It was an inadvertence for which I afterwards blamed myself much that I did not send one to Mr L (he says in the Oc a copy reached him through the kindness of a friend) for I should with my then feelings certainly have done so just as I sent then the gist of my letter to Mr Hart but I sent the parcel on to Phil I could not afterwards procure one. Mr L says Mr De S's testimonials were highly creditable to ? But I & others too thought this no praise—no kind words, for none could say otherwise. And if all our doubt, if we had any were removed by Mr L himself who labored hard to show, altho' he did not plainly say that these testimonials were only given me as a matter of favor Thus Mr L. says they were signed by the Rev D. Meldola (This name would be sufficient, as every reader of the Occident knew who Mr Meldola was, since a few numbers back there was a ? of a Catechism he published or if this readers must know who Mr M his say he is 6? Rabbi of the Portuguese Jews in London but no Mr L gives his title the maternal uncle of Mr De S. The inference from this must be obvious. Again next “by Dr Lowe his preceptor (of course a preceptor would cry up his pupils) next “by Dr A Benisch, says Mr L, “once Editor of the voice of Jacob (why not style him what my “handbill more properly calls him, Professor of Hebrew at the Jews Institution at ? Hall author of &c &c but no, he was author of the voice of J. & Mr D S “assisted him in his labours says Mr L. The influence is that in return for my kindness the Dr gave me a testimonial at all events he was particularly intimate with me & would not refuse, next writes Mr L, but Dr Raphall. Now it might be naturally thought that it would be quite unnecessary to say who the eminent Dr Raphall was—however as he was to the American Jewish community among whom he had but lately been elected Minister with much ? as well as Mr L. but Mr L thought otherwise. He therefore writes Dr Raphall who was associated in various literary labours with Rev David De Sola3.
? of Mr A D. S. of course the Dr in his good feeling for the father—his old friend would favor the son with a testimonial. Thus then might one not unnaturally infer that all my testimonials were given me because all the donors were friends or relatives. The testimonial of the late venerable & talented Michael Josephs—one of the greatest Hebrew scholars & writers among the Jews of England, Mr L did not comment upon or take any notice of at all. I could not but think that Mr L thereby rendered himself open to a charge of want of candour, since one might naturally conclude that as he did not know in what relations Mr Josephs & myself were since he could not say Mr J was my preceptor or co-laborer, or a co-laborer of my father, or even a particular friend he ignored the testimonial lest his readers should think that at least one man gave me a good character who had no motive for doing so enough—couple this with what I have already written & say whether I too have not cause to be disappointed in Mr L. Say openly in your magazine or where you will that I have done you an injury. I can then defend myself— but do not stab me like an Italian bravo—do not blast my reputation & character unnecessarily Mr L may say I have fancied all this but the facts are too stubborn. Believe me, dear sir, before I had said or hinted anything about it more than one expressed themselves indignant at such treatment & strongly advised me to reply to it either in the Asmonean or by circular, but altho' I felt myself injured & knew if I replied all would give me right in my strictures on this article—still I had too much self pride so to do.en passant that I have determined not to write more for the Occident And this is the reason, let me tell you and was sorry that an article of mine appeared after the publication of the above notice so that people might suppose I was still a correspondent—but which in truth I cannot be until something more shall have passed in explanation between the writer of that injurious article & myself. That it has done me no good I am sure. Let Mr Solis—the friend to whom Mr L thinks I have maligned him—a just & candid friend himself a correspondent of the Occident—let him decide—& I am sure he will not say I am altogether wrong. Your opinion you need not give for I flatter myself I know it. My efforts such as they are for the Jewish cause shall not be wanting when I can make them. Hence I will write (being forced) for the Asmonean & for any paper not under the control of an Editor who could thus unjustly & unmercifully attack me. I am fully as sensitive as Mr Leeser. In his last letter to you Mr L writes “I would not have reacted so had Mr De S. been in my position & I in his.” I think he would & he ought not to forget the recommendation of our sages “Judge not thy fellow, until thou hast been in his position. Mr L. would rather do anything “than undermine a friend.” If Mr L wishes to convey that I have done or attempted to do so, I repel the accusation with indignation, and deny its truth by all that is sacred. Mr L also says “to be in league with them whom he knew to be my enemies is no test of friendship” I, as solemnly deny the truth of this allegation. I never have been in league with any one to injure Mr L, nor has any one even proposed so dishonorable a thing. I am not so easily made a cats paw. No one else would charge me with acting so irreligiously. It is an unjust change founded on illiberal irreligious suspicions. Let Mr L prove to you or any one that I have leagued with his enemies if he can. He surely cannot charge me with this because I did not refuse the civilities & support of the Messrs Phillips whom he told me were his enemies for the first time just before he went to New Orleans—a few weeks before the election. Previously he had never mentioned their names to me. But I will not say more about this unworthy charge. Mr L says Mr D. S. would do himself real honor by acknowledging his unintentional error as I am willing to regard it as such, my feelings were greatly outraged by the manner in which he ought to carry his plan. Mr L exhibits, it appears to me some inconsistency in this statement & it is what I cannot easily reconcile. If I undermined him or attempted to do so—if I leagued with his enemies to his detriment & if I sought to carry my plan in so dishonorable a manner as to wound his feelings—all of which Mr L says I did—how can he say at the same time I erred unintentionally. I could not undermine or league or plan unintentionally. No if I did this then I acted not unintentionally, but rascally, & with malice propense. This is the English of it And therefore I & you & any man of common sense cannot admit that Mr Leeser believes I have only erred unintentionally, while he brings forward (in the same paragraph) such serious charges against me. If Mr Leeser would do himself real honor & act with the justice he is fully capable to do, he will admit how incongruous his statements are, & plainly say that he does not think I leagued undermined flamed &erred unintentionally” only. I on my part am willing to make plotted against him, but that I “ any acknowledgment consistent with my convictions of my innocence of desiring by thought or deed to hurt him. No false pride or obstinacy, or desire to show that I am better than my neighbour shall withold me. And I do not scruple to say, and Mr Leeser may know it that I am truly sorry we are not on the same terms we were this time last year. Anything thatnight cause? angry feeling I have endeavored to avoid in this letter, for it is not I who make charges, but defend myself I must. I am quite sure that I never spoke injuriously or disrespectfully (as I could not) of Mr L to any. If I have written something in haste, likely in Mr L's estimation to do him an injury which I am not conscious however of having done I am quite ready to make all the reparation Mr L may require. Mr L should recollect that being no more than human it is quite natural that I should err, and that he himself wrote a review of my testimonials which is quite open to the construction I & others put upon it—that he has erred, & that I have forgiven it, for Mr L may be assured that after its first perusal I never had another angry feeling on the matter—further than thinking I was injured, which did not anger me much as I know Mr L wrote it in misconception of all circumstances? & in heat—and that from the first day I wrote him. Even before I worried in America until the present moment I have always entertained for him feelings of great respect regard & kindness and thugh I may no longer address him as a friend, still I am his friend yet Even if wrong, which to the extent Mr L has intimated, I never can admit I have been—and I do sincerely hope that after a dispassionate reading of what I have written & which I desire he should see Mr L will admit he has been deceived and ignorant of all the motives & circumstances under which I acted and that he consequently has been somewhat mistaken in what he has written to you I could not say as much as I have, knowing what Mr L has written already to yourself and my uncle (with whom it is impossible to injure me) I could not in all candour & sincerity admit that I value Mr L's good opinion, and desire he should think better of me—as well as he did of oldsincerely so desire, since I lay myself open to the charge that having ?fully offended Mr L did I not I know desire to conciliate him. Heaven knows I never wilfully offended him as I never wilfully injured him.
Mr Leeser says in his letter to you “Mr De Sola himself cannot regret as much as I do that an estrangement has taken place between us” but Mr Leeser has entirely mistaken my feelings towards him. He appears to have regarded me as false I therefore incapable of entertaining any kind feeling towards him. Not so. My communication with him during some four years was not without its pleasures. But it was our intimacy as Israelites, having the same religious convictions—belonging to the same school working in the same glorious cause—having kindred tastes & sentiments—it was this intimacy that I valued—always conscious (no false pride deters me from saying it) that I profited by it—as I wrote Mr Leeser in I think the very first letter I was addressed him Hebrew—it was the sudden unexpected severance of this intimacy that I have since regretted—the more so that I am conscious of never having been guilty of doing that which should cause it. Is Mr Leeser willing to retract his serious charges that I have attempted wilfully to undermine him—that I have leagued myself with his enemies—that I have made false protestations and acted falsely to him and instead of these charges admit after reading the above that he now attaches I only unintentionally erred against him and bore him no malice (as how should I) then I on my part am quite willing beforehand candidly to admit that in many things I may have acted foolishly both for his & my interest and that it is quite possible I hurt his feelings as he says, and even slightly injured him by anything I may unintentionally have done. Any further admission compatible with the declarations I have already made, I am quite willing further to make and questions to answer, since it is not a matter of indifference whether Mr L or any other man thinks well or ill of me.
Having made this communication so long I must apologise for stating up so much of your time, but it will be the last time I shall ever trouble you with so long & tiresome a letter on this subject. Indeed it will be quite useless and impossible for me to do so since should Mr Leeser not be willing to admit what I think he in common justice & truth should I have not one word more to say in the matter as it would be a waste of time that could be better employed. I am now writing into another day and last night it was the same for I have been unable to put aside other things go claiming my attention just now. I would not mind my convenience and I think any good could come of it, but as Mr Leeser's retraction of his unfounded charges can be the only good
that can satisfy me, I think under the circumstances I would not be right even to devote a leisure hour further to this subject of which by this time you are of course heartily tired so I subscribe myself at once
Yours truly
Abraham de Sola
26 Feby/51
The above text refers to Occident Volume 7 No. 7 pages 376 through 378. Click here to view.
Identifier: LSTCAT_item201
Date: 1851-02-26
References: True

Part of Letter from Abraham de Sola to Jacob Henry Joseph;February 26, 1851

Abraham de Sola, “Letter from Abraham de Sola to Jacob Henry Joseph;February 26, 1851”, 1851-02-26, Isaac Leeser Digital Repository, accessed September 18, 2024, https://judaicadhpenn.org/legacyprojects/s/leeser/item/65729