1. I wish to thank Kathleen Neils Conzen, Professor of History, University of Chicago, who first motivated me to undertake this study and without whose patient guidance and insightful editing it could not have been written. I am also grateful to Michael P. Conzen, Professor of Geography, University of Chicago, for drawing the map which appears in this article and to Professors Leon A. Jick and Marshall Sklare.

2. The reader is referred to Dean, Esslinger, Immigrants and the City: Ethnicity and Mobility in a Nineteenth-Century Midwestern Community (Port Washington, N.Y., 1975)Google Scholar, chap. 1 and nn., for a succinct summary. The only work, to my knowledge, which includes a separate analysis of Jewish social and economic mobility is Stephan, Thernstrom'sThe Other Bostonians: Poverty and Progress in the American Metropolis 1880–1970 (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), pp. 145–75. Even that, however, is a cursory analysis, based as it is on three samples, the largest of which included only thirty-eight individuals.Google Scholar

3. I am fully aware of the current debate within the field of American Jewish history over the correct nomenclature for the estimated 225,000 Jewish immigrants who arrived in theUnited States between 1815 and 1880, before the mass immigration of Eastern European Jews began. Since, as is shown in this study, the vast majority came from areas incorporated in Germany after 1871, and were German speaking, for convenience and clarity's sake they are referred to in this study as “German” Jews, with the understanding that some emigrated from other neighboring areas of Western, Central, and Eastern Europe. For a full discussion of this issue see Rudolf, Glanz, “The ‘Bayer’ and the ‘Pollack’ in America,” Jewish Social Studies (hereafter cited as JSS) 17 (1955): 27–42Google Scholar, reprinted in idem, Studies in Judaica Americana (New York, 1970), pp. 187–202.Google Scholar

4. For a discussion of this problem, which is an ongoing one for demographers and sociologists, see Sidney, Goldstein and Calvin, Goldscheider, Jewish Americans: Three Generations in a Jewish Community (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968), pp. 14–17. Because of the high premium placed on separation of church and state, a question on religion has never appeared in a decennial U.S. census. United States immigration records, however, included the classification “Hebrews” between 1899 and 1943.Google Scholar

5. Among the most notable exceptions are the numerous articles by Rudolf Glanz, collected in Studies in Judaica Americana, and the most recent studies, listed below in note 9.

6. Cf., for instance, Marshall, Sklare, America's Jews (New York, 1971), pp. 37–72 and idem, ed., The Jew in American Society (New York, 1974), pp. 93–162, and bibliography, pp. 388–97.Google Scholar

7. For a succinct listing of possible explanations see Thernstrom, Bostonians, pp. 160–75.

8. In the early part of this century German Jewish spokesmen were eager to differentiate themselves in the eyes of the general public from the “new” immigrants from Poland and Russia—a bias which colored their descriptions of German Jewish mobility. For later historians the tendency to describe Jewish communal dissension as a by-product of German- Eastern European rivalry, with class overtones, has perpetuated the usefulness of a stereotypic view of German Jewish mobility. For the most recent discussion of this problem see Oscar, Handlin, “A Twenty Year Retrospect of American Jewish Historiography,” American Jewish Historical Quarterly (hereafter cited as AJHQ) 65 (1976): 295–301.Google ScholarStephen, Birmingham's best selling Our Crowd: The Great Jewish Families of New York (New York, 1967) has served once more to popularize the mythic image of old.Google Scholar

9. These studies include: Seth, Bernstein, “The Economic Life of the Jews in San Francisco During the 1860's,” American Jewish Archives 27 (1975): 70–73;Google ScholarRobert, Rockaway, “From Americanization to Jewish Americanism: The Jews of Detroit 1815–1914” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1970);Google ScholarKenneth, Roseman, “The Jewish Population of America, 1850–1860: A Demographic Study of Four Cities” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College- Jewish Institute of Religion, 1971);Google ScholarMarc, Lee Raphael, “The Early Jews of Columbus Ohio: A Study in Economic Mobility 1850–1880,” in Bertram, Korn, ed., A Bicentennial Festschrift for Jacob Rader Marcus (New York, 1976), pp. 435–47;Google ScholarSteven, Hertzberg, “The Jews of Atlanta, 1865–1915,” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1975).Google Scholar

10. Oscar, Handlin, Bostons Immigrants, 1790–1880, 2d ed. rev. and enl. (New York, 1968);Google ScholarPeter, Knights, The Plain People of Boston, 1830–1860 (New York, 1971); Thernstrom, Boslonians.Google Scholar

11. Estimating the Jewish population in the United States for any period is a hazardous proposition, and especially so for the nineteenth century. For the most precise estimates of the number of Jews enumerated in the federal censuses of 1790 and 1820, and a discussion of the problems involved, cf. Ira, Rosenwaike, “An Estimate and Analysis of the Jewish Population of the United States in 1790,” AJHQ 50 (1960): 23–35 and idemGoogle Scholar, “The Jewish Population of the United States as Estimated from the Census of 1820,” AJHQ 53 (1963): 131–49.Google Scholar

12. Rosenwaike, “1790,” pp. 33–35; idem, “1820,” pp. 148–49.

13. There are simply no reliable estimates for this period. In the standard secondary sources one or another person's educated guess serves as the basis for subsequent ones. The figure of 40,000 is an extrapolation between an estimate of 6,000 made by Isaac Harby of Charleston, S.C. in 1826 (see S.Gilman, North American Review, July 1826), and a contemporary estimate of 49,000 in 1845, which seems too highGoogle Scholar (see Cincinnati Miscellany [1845; reprint ed., New York, 1971], p. 171).Google ScholarThe 150,000 figure is an estimate inferred in the Occident and American Jewish Advocate (Philadelphia), 12 (1856): 413.Google Scholar

14. Encyclopedia Judaica (hereafter cited as EJ), s.v. “New York City,” col. 1070.

15. Cf. Steven, Hertzberg, “The Jewish Community of Atlanta from the End of the Civil War Until the Eve of the Frank Case,” AJHQ 62 (1973): 251 for a specific example.Google Scholar

16. Chicago's Jewish community grew from 20 families in 1840 to 1,500 persons in 1860 (EJ, s.v. “Chicago,” cols. 410–11); Milwaukee from 47 families in 1845 to 200 in 1860 (Louis, Swichkow and Lloyd, Gartner, The History of the Jews in Milwaukee [Philadelphia, 1963], chap. 1); Detroit from 60 persons in 1850 to 200 in 1860 (Rockaway, “Jews of Detroit,” pp. 1–38); St. Louis from less than 100 persons in 1840 to 600–700 persons in 1860(AE7, s.v. “St. Louis,” cols. 662–63); and San Francisco's from none in 1840 to 2,500–5,000 in 1860 (Bernstein, “Jews in San Francisco,” p. 70).Google Scholar

17. There is a large body of literature on Jewish peddling, but unfortunately most of it is excessively anecdotal. For the most analytic article see Glanz, “Notes on Early Jewish Peddling in America,” JSS 7 (1945): 119–36, reprinted in Judaica Americana, pp. 104–21.Google Scholar

18. Occident 12 (1856): 411–13. Leeser's figures are credible both because of his high caliber of reporting and his extensive travel for the sole purpose of visiting Jewish communities.Google Scholar

19. Mack, Walker, Germany and the Emigration, 1816–1885 (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), p. 47.Google Scholar

20. Glanz, “The Immigration of German Jews up to 1880,” Yivo Annual 2/3(1941–48): 91, reprinted in Judaica Americana, p. 95.Google Scholar

21. The Jewish influx into Newport commenced about 1740. The Touro Synagogue was dedicated in 1763, but immediately following the Revolutionary War the Jewish community, like the town itself, virtually disappeared.

22. Rosenwaike, “1790,” pp. 24–25; “1820,” pp. 141–42.

23. Cf. Handlin, Boston's Immigrants, tables 6–9, pp. 242–46; Knights, Plain People, table 3:2, p. 36. As late as 1850 there were less than 1,800 Germans out of a total population of 137,000, an equal number of Scots, and even fewer Scandinavians. Knights reports that a mere 2 percent of his 1840 sample were born in continental Europe, and only 5 percent as late as 1860.

24. Handlin, Boston's Immigrants, p. 37.

25. Ibid p. 12.

26. Carroll, Wright and Horace, Wadlin, “The Industries of the Last Hundred Years” in Justin, Winsor, ed., The Memorial History of Boston 1630–1880, 4 vols. (Boston, 1881), 4: 69.Google Scholar

27. Ibid pp. 88, 92–93. Handlin may have in part based his conclusions on uncritical acceptance of the State Industrial Censuses of 1837 and 1845 which list Suffolk County's industrial product as only $10 million and $13.8 million respectively. Wright and Wadlin, however, directors of the State Bureau of Statistics in 1880, convincingly argue that these early censuses were “exceedingly unsatisfactory, both from many omissions of important industries and methods” (p. 90). The figures cited here are their estimates of the correct totals.

28. Albert, Ehrenfried, A Chronicle of Boston Jewry (Boston, 1963), pp. 332–37.Google Scholar

29. Besides providing emergency financial aid, the Chevra and its successor, the Chevra Gemiloth Chesed (free loan society) founded in 1853, also provided for the visiting and assisting of the sick, guaranteed a proper burial, and even provided families with funds for the seven day period of mourning. See “Minutebook of the Chevra Gemiloth Chesed,” deposited in the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio.

30. Ehrenfried, Chronicle, pp. 338–39. Subsequently Congregation Ohabei Shalom purchased a 10,000 sq. ft. lot on the corners of Byron and Homer Sts. for $200, which was paid for by assessing members $5 each.

31. Ibidpp. 337–38.

32. Wright and Wadlin, Memorial History, 4: 80. That Boston's manufacturers profited immensely from the Irish influx is evidenced in the doubling of the city's annual industrial product to $64 million between 1840 and 1860: see Ibid p. 93.

33. Charles Francis Adams, “The Canal and Railroad Enterprise of Boston,” Memorial History, vol. 4, chap. 5.

34. Wright and Wadlin, Memorial History, pp. 90–91; Handlin, Boston's Immigrants, pp. 75–77. There is still some disagreement among scholars as to whether tailoring was a skill Jewish immigrants brought with them, or whether they acquired it only after arriving in the United States.

35. Occident 9 (1851): 380–81.

36. Handlin's estimate of 200 Jewish families in Boston by 1850 (cf. Boston's Immigrants, p. 52), derived from contemporary accounts in the Boston Pilot, appears to be too high for that year.

37. My figures on year of arrival are unfortunately subject to a number of qualifications. The most precise way to gauge when individuals arrived is to consult passenger lists—a laborious task I have yet to undertake. Since a number of Boston's Jews arrived via New York, lists for both Boston and New York would have to be checked. My calculations were based first of all on census data, which list the state in which all members of the family were born. Since most families had children every two years or so, one seemingly gets a good idea of how long they had been in Massachusetts. There is no way, obviously, of determining whether a family first lived somewhere in Massachusetts outside of Boston. For those not found in the censuses I used the first year they were found in the tax assessment lists or city directories. In these cases they may well have arrived a few years earlier. Cf. Knights, Plain People, apps. A and B, pp. 127–43.

38. Women were not included as sample members because they were rarely listed in city directories or tax assessment records. The wives and children of sample members, however, were included in the demographic analysis.

39. Albert, Ehrenfried, A Chronicle of Boston Jewry (Boston, 1963)Google Scholar. The Palestinian messenger lists for 1850 and 1861 are found in Salo, Baron, “Palestinian Messengers in America, 1849–79,” JSS 5 (1943): 115–62, 225–92Google Scholar, reprinted in Jeanette, Baron, ed., Steeled By Adversity: Essays and Addresses on American Jewish Life (Philadelphia, 1971), pp. 158–266.Google Scholar

40. Cf. Glanz, “German Jewish Names in America,” JSS 23 (1961): 143–69, reprinted in Judaica Americana, pp. 278–89. Glanz notes the distinctiveness of Jewish-German as opposed to German surnames. Specifically, -heimer and -steiner endings referred to Jews almost without exception, as did scenic-geographical endings such as -feld, -thal(er), -baum, -berg, -wasser, -dorf.Google Scholar

41. Cf. Knights, Plain People, pp. 127–47; Thernstrom, Boslonians, pp. 265–88. Peddlers were especially likely to be underenumerated because they were self-employed, and likely to be out of town at the time of enumeration. That a number of Jews were being overlooked is evidenced by the eight sample members found in censuses or assessments but not city directories, and by the thirty-one who appeared only intermittently in the city directories.

42. The issue of methodological purity in sample selection is a controversial one. However, I agree with the argument recently set forth by Thernstrom, that in dealing with “the complexity and messiness that we inevitably encounter when we venture into territory not already wellcharted by previous researchers,” tolerance for reasonable methodological improvisation is a necessity (Historical Methods Newsletter 7 [1975]: 112ff.).

43. The percentage of sample members from Northeast Germany is an educated guess. What later became the nation-state of Poland was at the time divided between Prussia, Russia, and Austria. That “Polish” Jews of the mid-nineteenth century were in fact mostly from Prussia is evidenced by the fact that they were German speaking and were commonly referred to by Bavarian Jews as “hinter Berliners.” Cf. Glanz, “‘Bayer’ and the ‘Pollack,’” p. 189. Some of the “Prussians” may have been from the Rhineland (West German) area, but it is doubtful if this applies to very many. Because Bavarian Jews were likely to identify themselves as such, it may also be assumed that many of those, identifying themselves as “German” were from Eastern Prussia. Cf. Ibid where Glanz states, “The place of origin listed next to the names of East European Jews is shown as Germany or Prussia, as well as Austria, Poland, or Russia.” He estimates that “at least a third” of America's Jews were of Eastern European origin by 1880 (Ibid).

44. Ehrenfried, Chronicle, pp. 345ff. The ostensible reason for the split was differences in religious practices and liturgy, but more general cultural and social factors were also clearly involved.

45. This was determined by noting where children and wives were born. With but three exceptions both spouses were born in the same place, indicating that the majority immigrated together or in close succession. There is, of course, the possibility that the couples met and married immediately after arriving, but this seems unlikely. Cf. Glanz, “‘Bayer’ and the ‘Pollack,’” p. 190: “… brides were often taken along or sent for a little later.”

46. That this was not unique to Boston Jewry is evidenced by the fact that 53 percent of the 151 women admitted to New York's “Jews' Hospital” in 1856 and 1858 reported their occupation as “domestics.” Cf. Occident 14 (1857): 581 and 16 (1858): 592.

47. Walter, Muir Whitehill, Boston: A Topographical History, 2d ed. enl. (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), chaps. 1–6 passim.Google Scholar

48. Handlin, Boston's Immigrants, map p. 92.

49. Whitehall, Boston, chaps. 5 and 6.

50. Boston tax assessment records, 1850 (deposited in the Boston Public Library but uncatalogued).

51. Handlin, Boston's Immigrants, p. 99. For another description of the/Park Square” area, cf. Edward Stanwood, “Topography and Landmarks of the Last Hundred Years,” in Memorial History, 4: 63.

52. I say conservative because by using city directories, a maximum of one move per year can be detected. Cf. Knights, Plain People, pp. 60–64.

53. Based upon the sample data 57 percent of all moves were intraward and 43 percent interward.

54. Knights, Plain People, pp. 62–63.

55. Handlin, Boston's Immigrants, pp. 57, 250–52. His statement that “as the [ethnic] group grew smaller, its miscellaneous character progressively increased” certainly does not apply in the case of Boston's Jews (p. 57).

56. Cf. Thernstrom, Other Bostonians, app. B, pp. 289–302, and Knights, Plain People, app. E, pp. 149–56. An established merchant is one whose taxed wealth exceeded $1,000.

57. The proportion appears to be somewhat less skewed in table 10, but one must correct for the percentage of Jews included in the “Germans” and “all workers” categories.

58. Cf. Knights, Plain People, pp. 89–93. Knights elaborates upon the limitations and possible biases in tax assessment data. He concludes that wealth was probably understated, especially in the case of individuals with extensive assets.

59. This is due to the fact that only a relatively small number of Jews were located in more than one tax assessment.

60. The estimated inflation during the decade was 13 percent. Cf. Knights, Plain People, p. 80.

61. Ehrenfried, Chronicle, pp. 35Off. In 1850 and again in 1861 a combined total of over fifty Jews donated money to be sent to Palestine. In 1856 two B'nai B'rith lodges were founded, augmenting the two burial societies and one women's group. On September 19, 1858, a public mass meeting was held to celebrate Baron Rothschild's admission as the first Jew in the English Parliament. In the same month $240 was sent to the Jewish community of New Orleans to aid victims of a yellow fever epidemic. By 1855 two Jewish schools were maintained.

62. Ibidp. 342.

63. Boston Evening Transcript, reprinted in the Israelite (Cincinnati) 1 (1855): 251.

64. Boston Herald, March 27, 1852, reprinted in Occident 10 (1857): 104–8.

65. Cf. above n. 63. For a more general discussion see Lloyd Gartner, “Temples of Liberty Unpolluted: American Jews and Public Schools, 1840–1875” in Korn, Bicentennial Festschrift, pp. 157–89.

66. Cf. Glanz, “‘Bayer’ and the ‘Pollack,’” pp. 193–95. He claims the tendency was strongest in the West, but prevalent all over. More recently see Leon, Jick, The Americanization of the Synagogue, 1820–1870 (Hanover, N.H., 1976), pp. 44–57.Google Scholar

67. Occident 14 (1856): 412.

68. The New York sample is derived from the annual report of “Jews' Hospital” (later renamed Mt. Sinai) in two of its first four years of operation, 1856 and 1858. For each patient admitted (216 in 1856 and 280 in 1858), occupation, age, and place of birth were recorded. The hospital was little more than an infirmary at the time, with a total staff of nine persons (one doctor), and was opened for the specific purpose of treating Jewish patients. It is presumed the patients represented a fair cross-section of New York's lower and middle class Jews. Cf. Occident 14 (1856): 581–82; 16 (1858): 592–93.

69. Raphael, “The Early Jews of Columbus, Ohio,” pp. 445–46.

70. Ibid

71. On this last point cf. Glanz, “Jews in Relation to the Cultural Milieu of the Germans in America,” Judaica Americana, pp. 203–55.

72. Occident 14 (1856): 413.