Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:55:54.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ludwig Bamberger and the Rise of Anti-Semitism in Germany, 1848–1893

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Stanley Zucker
Stanley Zucker
Affiliation:
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Theodor Mommsen called him “the most German man.” The Israelit noted that he had never stepped forward as a Jew. Ernest Hamburger writes that he was the only Jewish deputy who omitted the usual declaration about his religious allegiance in the parliamentary manual. “It was without significance for him.” In his will he requested that “no religious ceremony take place since this is absolutely contrary to my conviction.” And even after his death, when his brother Rudolf established a fund of ten thousand marks for the Berlin Jewish community, it was specified that books could be distributed to talented children except those who attended religious schools. Thus we have a picture of Ludwig Bamberger, the most German man or at least a completely emancipated Jew.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 1970 , pp. 332 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Im Deutschen Reich: Zeitschrift des Centralvereins deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens, 1899, p. 204.

2. Israelit, XL (1899), No. 22 (Mar. 16, 1899), 418.Google Scholar

3. Hamburger, Ernest, Juden im öffentlichen Leben Deustshlands: Regierungmitglieder Beamte und Parlamentarier in der monarchischen Zeit 1848–1918 (“Schriftenreihe wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen des Leo Baeck Instituts,” XIX, Tübingen, 1968), p. 327.Google Scholar

4. “Wunsch an mein Testamentsvollstrecker,” May 19, 1892, Ludwing Bamberger Papers, Leo Baeck Institute, New York. Hereafter cited as Bamberger Papers (New York). Bamberger's papers are concentrated in three locations. The largest single collection of letters from Bamberger is in the Handschriftenabteilung of the Staatsbibliothek in West Berlin. It consists largely of letters to his wife, monther, and brother, containing both personal and political news. They are particulary valuable for the periods 1844–1847 and 1867–1882. The major center for a study of Bamberger and of German liberalism is the Deutsches Zentralarchiv in Potsdam and Merseburg. Besides Bamberger's papers the archive possesses the papers of most of the leading National Liberal and Secessionist party leaders, those of Theodor Barth, Max Broemel, Eduard Lasker, and Franz Schenck von Stauffenberg being richest in letters from Bamberger. A small but qualitatively significant collection of material on Bamberger can be found at the Leo Baeck Institute in New York. Other important collections of Bamberger's letters are located in the papers of Alfred Stren at the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz and of Theodor Mommsen at the Deutsche Staatsbibliothek in East Berlin.

5. Isidor Freymark to Paul Nathan, n.d., Bamberger Nachlass, Deutsches Zentralarchiv I, Potsdam. Hereafter cited as Bamberger Nachlass (Potsdam).

6. Toury, Jacob, Die politischen Orientierungen der Juden in Deutschland von Jena bis Weimar (“Schriftenreihe wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen des Leo Baeck Instituts,” XV, Tübingen, 1966), pp. 150–52.Google ScholarBamberger's, diary was edited by Ernst, Feder, Bismarks grosses Spiel: Die geheimen Tagebücher Ludwig Bambergers (Frankfurt a.M., 1932).Google ScholarStenographische Berichte über die Verhandlungen des deutsachen Reichstags, 5. Legislaturperiode, 2. Session (June 14, 1882), pp. 429–30, 434, 437, 438. Hereafter cited as SBR, 5 LP, 2 S.

7. Faber, Karl-Georg, Die Rheinlande zwischen Restauration und Revolution: Probleme der rheinischen Geschichte von 1814 bis 1848 im Spiegel der zeitgenössischen Publizistik (Wiesbaden, 1966), pp. 21, 110;Google ScholarKeim, Anton Maria, “Die Judenfrage vor dem Hessischen Landtag in der Zeit von 1820–1849; ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Juden im Vormärz” (unpub. diss., Mainz, 1953), pp. 48–49, 132;Google ScholarReis, Eduard, Mainzer Silhouetten und Genrebilder: Ein Panorama des heutigen Mainz (Mainz, 1841), pp. 66–71;Google ScholarRössler, Hellmuth, “Mainz im Jahre 1848,” Mainzer Zeitschrift, Jg. 58 (1963), 91;Google ScholarSali, Levi, ed., Magenza (Mainz, 1927), pp. 61–62, 89–90.Google Scholar

8. Anna von Helmholtz to Ida, Mar. 16, 1899, Ellen, Siemens-Helmholtz, ed., Anna von Helmholtz: Ein Lebensbild in Briefen (Berlin, 1929), II, 183;Google Scholar Toury, Die politischen Orientierungen, p. 73; Bamberger, Ludwig, Erinnerungen (Berlin, 1899), pp. 118, 146;Google ScholarBamberger, Ludwig to Anna Belmont, Jan. 31, 1844, Ascension Day, 1844, and n.d. [1844], Bamberger Nachlass, Staatsbibliothek, Berlin-Dahiem. Hereafter cited as Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahlem). She was Jewish and apparently upset by his disparaging comments about religion.Google Scholar

9. Bamberger, Erinnerungen, pp. 3, 257, 258; for the role of the Jews in 1848 see Toury, Die politischen Orientierungen, pp. 47–86, and the material in Liebeschütz, Rahel, “The Wind of Change: Letters of Two Generations from the Biedermeier Period,” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, XII (1967), 235–36, 248.Google Scholar

10. Bamberger's, literary activity during this period can be sampled in his Gesammelte Schriften (5 vols., Berlin, 1894–1898), III, IV, passim, hereafter cited as G.S.;Google Scholar Feder, Bismarcks grosses Spiel, pp. 75–254; Bamberger, Erinnerungen, passim.

11. Bamberger, Anna to Ludwig Bamberger, Aug. 5, Sept. 15, 1863Google Scholar, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahlem); Bamberger, Erinnerungen, pp. 528–29; Ludwig Bamberger, Rede gehalten am Schluss des ersten allgemeinen deutschen Turnfestes in Paris (n.p., n.d. [1865]). As he wrote to Eduard Lasker in 1868: “I feel alien on French soil and try to justify and make interesting my presence here by all kinds of Kuriositätsnachgrabungen.” Bamberger to Eduard Lasker, Dec. 15, 1868, Eduard Lasker Nachlass, Deutsches Zentralarchiv I, Potsdam. Hereafter cited as Lasker Nachlass (Potsdam).

12. Feder, Bismarcks grosses Spiel, p. 91. Years later Bamberger returned to the same subject, but then remarked that Jews were hurt socially because of their disinclination for drinking; Bamberger, Ludwig, “Deutschtum und Judentum,” Unsere Zeit, 1880 (I), 199.Google Scholar Bamberger to Berthold Auerbach, June 20, 1871, Berthold Auerbach Nachlass, Schiller Nationalmuseum, Marbach a.N.

13. Feder, Bismarcks grosses Spiel, pp. 98–100.

14. Feder, Bismarcks grosses Spiel, pp. 155–56, 186, 196–97.

15. Toury, Die politischen Orientierungen, pp. 155ff.

16. Bamberger to Anna, Mar. 12, 14, 18, 20, 22, 1871, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahlem). Bamberger often uses this phrase, “one of us,” and it does not always mean “one of us Jews,” as Toury seems to believe; see Bamberger's letter to Maximilian Harden, Dec. 22, 1889, cited by Toury, Die politischen Orientierungen, pp. 152, 335. He appears to be referring to writers or publicists, not Jews. See also Bamberger's letter to the non-Jew Franz Schenck von Stauffenberg, Mar. 24, 1887, Franz Schenck von Stauffenberg Nachlass, Deutsches Zentralarchiv I, Potsdam.

17. Bamberger to Anna, Mar. 17, 22, Oct. 21, 1871, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahlem); Bamberger to Lasker, Apr. 4, 1872, Lasker Nachlass (Potsdarn).

18. Bamberger to von Forckenbeck, Max, Jan. 12, 1877Google Scholar, Max von Forckenbeck Nachlass, Deutsches Zentralarchiv II, Merseburg; Bamberger to Anna, Dec. 24, 1872, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahiem); diary entry, June 9, 1875, Feder, Bismarcks grosses Spiel, p. 265.

19. Bamberger to Lasker, June 22, 1868, Lasker Nachlass (Potsdam); Bamberger to Paul Lindau, June 4, December 25, 1872, Paul Lindau Nachlass, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz; Böhme, Helmut, Deutschlands Weg zur Grossmacht: Studien zum Verhältnis von Wirtschaft und Staat während der Reichsgründungszeit 1848–1881 (Cologne and Berlin, 1966), pp. 341–586;Google ScholarWehler, Hans-Ulrich, Bismarck und der Imperialismus (Cologne and Berlin, 1969), pp. 39–111;Google ScholarEyck, Erich, Bismarck (Erlenbach-Zürich, 1944), III, 185–314;Google ScholarSandberg, Dietrich, Die Ministerkandidatur Bennigsens (“Historische Studien,” CLXXXVII, Berlin, 1929);Google ScholarBlock, Hermann, Die parlamentarische Krisis der Nationalliberalen Partei 1878–1880 (Münster, 1930);Google ScholarBamberger, , G.S., V, 39–134.Google Scholar On German anti-Semitism see Pulzer, Peter G. J., The Rise of Political Anti-Semitism in Germany and Austria (New York, 1964);Google ScholarMassing, Paul, Rehearsal for Destruction (New York 1949);Google ScholarMüller, Josef, Die Entwicklung des Rassenantisemitismus in den letzten Jahrzehnten des 19. Jahrhunderts (“Historische Studien,’ CCCXL, Berlin, 1940);Google ScholarWawrzinek, Kurt, Die Entstehung der deutschen Antisemitenparteien (“Historische Studien,” CLXVIII, Berlin, 1927);Google ScholarJöhlinger, Otto, Bismarck und die Juden (Berlin, 1921);Google ScholarRosenberg, Hans, Grosse Depression und Bismarckzeit (“Veröffentlichungen der Historischen Kommission zu Berlin,” XXIV, Berlin, 1967), pp. 88–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Paul, Nerrlich, ed., Arnold Ruges Briefwechsel und Tagebuchblätter aus den Jahren 1825–1880 (Berlin, 1886), II, 425;Google Scholar Bamberger to Lasker, Bl. 60, n.d. [July 1879], Lasker Nachlass (Potsdam); Haacke, Wilmont, Julius Rodenberg und die Deutsche Rundschau: Eine Studie zur Publizistik des deutschen Liberalismus (1870–1914) (“Beiträge zur Publizistik,” II, Heidelberg, 1950), pp. 69–75, 78;Google ScholarBusch, Moritz, Tagebuchblätter (Leipzig, 1890), III, 8–9;Google Scholar Bamberger to Lasker, Dec. 19, 1879, Lasker Nachlass (Potsdam). The article in question finally seems to have been published—unchanged, Bamberger claimed—four years later in the Deutsche Rundschau, under a pseudonym. It provides an accurate prophecy for the period 1879–83; “Epimetheus” [Ludwig Bamberger], “Fürst Bismarck und die Liberalen,” Deutsche Rundschau, XXXVI (09 1883), 421–34;Google Scholar diary entry, Sept. 1, 1883, Feder, Bismarcks grosses Spiel, p. 273.

21. Treitschke's first essay and two subsequent ones were collected in Heinrich von Treitschke, , Ein Wort über unser Judentum (Berlin, 1880);CrossRefGoogle ScholarBöhlich, Walter, “Der Berliner Antisemitismus Streit,” Der Monat, XVII (09 1965), 40–54;Google ScholarLiebeschütz, Hans, “Treitschke and Mommsen on Jewry and Judaism,” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, VII (1962), 153–82;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Michael A. Meyer, “Great Debate on Anti-Semitism:Jewish Reaction to New Hostility in Germany, 1879–1881,” ibid., xi (1966), 137–70; Toury, Die politischen Orientierungen, pp. 170–77; Dorpalen, Andreas, Heinrich von Treitschke (New Haven, 1957), pp. 241–47.Google Scholar

22. Bamberger, Ludwig, Über Rom und Paris nach Gotha oder die Wege des Herrn von Treitschke (Stuttgart, 1866);Google Scholar Bamberger to Anna, Nov. 3, 1871, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahlem); von Treitschke, Heinrich, “Der Sozialismus und seine Gönner,” Preussische Jahrbücher, XXXIV (1874), 67–110, 248–301.Google Scholar

23. Bamberger to Mama, Dec. 19, 1879, Jan. 10, 1880, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahlem); Bamberger, Ludwig, “Deutschtum und Judentum,” Unsere Zeit, 1880 (I), 188–205.Google Scholar

24. Treitschke, Em Wort, p. 3; Graetz's eleven-volume Geschichte der Juden von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart (Leipzig, 1853–1876)Google Scholar was a patriotic (Zionist) interpretation of Jewish history and critical of many German heroes, such as Martin Luther and Frederick the Great, because of their attitudes towards Jews.

25. Bamberger, “Deutschtum und Judentum,” p. 190. Stoecker, Adolf (1835–1909)Google Scholar, the court chaplain, had recently entered politics on the twin issues of support for the lower classes and anti-Semitism. By equating the anti-Semitic Christian with the anti-German Jew and thus suggesting the similarity of their intolerance Bamberger was trying to discredit Graetz as a representative spokesman for German Jewry. He would also defuse one of Treitschke's arguments.

26. Bamberger, “Deutschtum und Judentum,” pp. 188–92, 199.

27. Bamberger, “Deutschtum und Judentum,” pp. 192, 198; Bamberger to Mama, Dec. 19, 1879, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahlem); Bamberger to Lasker, n.d. [1879], Lasker Nachlass (Potsdam).

28. Bamberger, “Deutschtum und Judentem,” pp. 192–95; Bamberger, Ludwig, “Verdirbt die Politik den Charakter?’ G.S., I, 302–303.Google Scholar

29. Bamberger, “Deutschtum und Judentum,” pp. 188, 195–201; Bamberger, Ludwig, “Die deutsche Kolonie in Paris,” G.S., I, 230.Google Scholar On the question of an integrated German nation see Bamberger's revealing diary entry of Nov. 27, 1883, where he repeats a statement of Arthur Hobrecht's that he (Hobrecht) was the only Prussian in the National Liberal Party, “and with Hanoverians and Rthinelanders I feel as alien as among Frenchmen.” Feder, Bismarcks grosses Spiel, p. 274.

30. Bamberger, “Deutschtum und Judentum,” pp. 203–205; Bamberger, , “Heinrich von Treitschke,” G.S., II, 177, 202–203, 207;Google Scholar Bamberger to Stern, Alfred, Oct. 19, 1888, June 29, 1889,Google Scholar Alfred Stern Nachlass, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz; von Treitschke, Heinrich, Briefe (Leipzig, 1913–1917), III, 516–25, 564.Google Scholar Bamberger was immensely pleased with the reception of his article and agreed to have it reprinted as a separate essay, which went through two printings; Bamberger to Mama, Jan. 29, Feb. 28, 1880, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahiem). Even the Israelit, XX (1880), 197–98Google Scholar, noted that the article was distinguished by a “quiet and worthy style as well as by the sharpness of its arguments.”

31. Bamberger to Mama, Mar. 23, Dec. 17, 1880, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahlem); Philippson, Martin, Max von Forckenbeck (Dresden, 1891), p. 345;Google Scholar see also the reaction of Kapp, Friedrich in his letter to Eduard Cohen, Nov. 21, 1880,Google Scholar printed in Wehler, Hans Ulrich, ed., Friedrich Kapp: Vom radikalen Frühsozialisten des Vormärz zum liberalen Parteipolitiker des Bismarckreichs (Frankfurt a.M., 1969), pp. 129–30.Google Scholar

32. Bamberger to Mama, Nov. 29, 1880, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahlem); Barnberger to Lasker, Nov. 15, Dec. 2, 1880, Lasker Nachlass (Potsdam); Bamberger, , ‘Heinrich Hombergers Essays,” G.S., II, 227–36.Google Scholar

33. Bamberger to Stauffenberg, Mar. 12, 1880, Stauffenberg Nachlass. The same unwillingness to act only with Lasker, a fellow Jew, was evidenced in Apr. 1881, in connection with the Socialist Law, over the issue of limiting the right of asylum in neighboring states. Rather than vote “no” with Lasker, Bamberger left Berlin early. Bamberger to Mama, Apr. 4, 1881, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahiern); Bamberger to Stern, June. 18, 1885, Stern Nachlass; Bamberger to Lasker, n.d. [July 1879], Lasker Nachlass (Potsdam).

34. Bamberger to Mama, Mar. 23, 1880, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahlem).

35. Bamberger to Lasker, n.d. [1879], Nachlass, Lasker (Potsdam); Bamberger to Mama, Dec. 19, 1879, Jan. 10, 1880, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahlem).Google Scholar

36. Wawrzinek, Die Entstehung, pp. 30–32; Busch, Moritz, Tagebuchblätter, I, 304Google Scholar; II, 33; III, 12–13.

37. Wawrzinek, Die Entstehung, pp. 33–36, 38; Philipp, Stein, ed., Bismarcks Reden (Leipzig, n.d.), VIII, 168–70.Google Scholar

38. Bamberger to Mama, Apr. 4, 1881, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahiem). Jöhlinger, Bismarck und die Juden, p. 114, on the contrary, sees the speech as Bismarck's “settling of accounts with the anti-Semites.” Eighteen years later Bamberger still saw Bismarck's anti-Semitism as being governed by the necessity of political success; Bamberger, Ludwig, Bismarck posthumus (Berlin, 1899), p. 38;Google Scholar Jöhlinger cites Bamberger's statement, but finds Bismarck's brand of anti-Semitism more respectable than that of Stoecker and Busch. See most recently Wehler, Bismarck und der Imperialismus, pp. 472–73, who documents the political basis of Bismarck's support of the anti-Semitic movement but holds the chancellor responsible, indirectly at least, for stimulating the more vulgar racial anti-Semitism.

39. Bamberger's speech, July 11, 1879, SBR, 4 LP, 2 S, p. 2299; Lambi, Ivo N., Free Trade and Protection in Germany 1868–1879 (“Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte,” Beihefte, No. 44, Wiesbaden, 1963), pp. 144–45.Google Scholar

40. Bamberger to Mama, June 11, 1881, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahlem).

41. Bamberger to Mama, June 27, 1881, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahiem). Barnberger's speech in Ober-Ingelheim, June 26, 1881, Lasker Nachlass, Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass.; Bamberger to Max Broemel, June 20, 1881, Max Broemel Nachlass, Deutsches Zentralarchiv I, Potsdam; Bamberger to Lasker, June 15, 1881, Lasker Nach-lass (Potsdam).

42. The figures for other elections were seven in 1878, five in 1884, and four in 1887; Hamburger, Juden im öffentlichen Leben, pp. 252–53, 406.

43. Bamberger to Lasker, Oct. 18, 1881, Lasker Nachlass (Potsdam); Bamberger, “Deutschtum und Judentum,” p. 203. Bamberger was mistaken, however, in calling the Imperial Decree on social insurance of Nov. 17, 1881, merely the cannonade of a “defeated army.”

44. Bamderger to Lasker, Dec. 2, 1880, Lasker Nachlass (Potsdam).

45. Pulzer, The Rise of Political Anti-Semitism, pp. 103–26; Wawrzinek, Die Entstehung, pp. 30–70.

46. Feder, Bismarcks grosses Spiel, pp. 270–74; Bamberger to Lasker, Dec. 2, 1880, Lasker Nachlass (Potsdam); Wehrenpfennig, Wilhelm, “Dampferliniensubvention,” Preussische Jahrbücher, LIV (1884), 97–99.Google Scholar

47. Bamberger to Stauffenberg, Oct. 5, 1884, Stauffenberg Nachlass; Bamberger to Stern, June 18, 1885, Stern Nachlass; Bamberger to Stauffenberg, Jan. 20, 1884, Stuffenberg Nachlass.

48. Neubach, Helmut, Die Ausweisungen von Polen und Juden aus Preussen 1885/1886 (“Marburger Ostforschungen,” XXVII, Wiesbaden, 1967), pp. 145–49.Google Scholar

49. Bamberger, “Deutschtum und Judentum,” p. 195.

50. Bamberget to Stern, May 31, 1890, Stern Nachlass.

51. SBR, 6 LP, 2 S (Jan. 16, 1886), pp. 586–87. See also his comments about Karl Hillebrand: “He combines as few do a delicate spirit, an indesribably good heart, and a tenderness of feeling as one otherwise misses with Deutschen (Germanen) [sic].” Bamberger to Mama, May 26, 1881, Bamberger Nachlass (Berlin-Dahlem).

52. Hamburger, Juden im öffentlichen Leben, pp. 251–53, 406.

53. Bamberger to Stauffenberg, Jan. 20, 1887, Stauffenberg Nachlass.

54. Bamberger to Stern, June 29, 1889, Stern Nachlass; Bamberger to Stauffenberg, Mar. 21, 1890, Stauffenberg Nachlass. Five anti-Semites were elected in 1890.

55. Pulzer, Rise of Political Anti-Semitism, pp. 112–17; Massing, Rehearsal for Destruction, pp. 92–96.

56. Bamberger to Broemel, July 26, 1890, Broemel Nachlass; Bamberger to Stauffenberg, May 18, 1892, Mar. 30, Apr. 24, 1893, Stuffenberg Nachlass; Bamberger to Stern May 18, 1892, Stern Nachlass.

57. Bamberger to Stauffenberg, Apr. 24, 1892, May 7, May 7, May 18, 1893, Stauffenberg Nachlass; Hartwig, Otto, Ludwig Bamberger, eine biographische Skizze, (Marburg, 1900), p. 75.Google Scholar

58. Bamberger to Stern, July 8, 1889, Apr. 16, 1893, Stern Nachlss.

59. Bamberger, “Deutschtum und Judentum,” p. 200; Bamberger to Stern, Dec. 24, 1892, Stern Nachlass; Bamberger to Theodor Barth, Aug. 23, 1893, Theodor Barth Nachlass, Deutsches Zentralarchiv I, Postam. As far as the author can determine Bamberger did not comment on the Dreyfus case.