SOURCE: "Jacob A. Riis: Christian Friend or Missonary Foe? Two Jewish Views," in American Jewish History, Vol. 71, No. 1, September, 1981, pp. 29-47.

[In the following essay, Gurock takes a close look at Riis's relationships with Jews.]

I. JACOB RIIS ATTACKED AND DEFENDED

A. The Lucas-Riis Letters

On August 14, 1903, the American Hebrew excitedly reported that "a particular settlement house on the lower East Side. . . . that has attracted much attention in the past few years, mainly owing to the fact that one of its patrons is a gentleman of international repute as an advocate and friend of the poor" was not living up to its announced "high and commendable purpose." Its work, they declared, "has not been of a strictly non-sectarian character, as has always been supposed. Children have gone to their homes singing religious hymns in honor of the Christ and the Virgin" taught to them by "Christians carrying on proselytizing work under our noses." They did not identify the patron or his mission by name but did record his following "passion(ate)" response to a reporter's query:

Yes, the house is a Christian settlement . . . We have nailed the Cross to the door and it is going to remain there. If your Jewish mothers don't know where they are sending their children, it is about time that Christian influence stepped in and took care of these children.¹

Two weeks later, the ghetto-based Yiddishes Tageblatt expanded upon its uptown contemporary's exposé and identified both the missionary and his institution. Under the headline, "Mothers Beware," downtown readers were informed that the "raison d'être for the existence of the King's Daughters (the settlement's original name) is to come to Christ and bring others to Christ." Immigrants were warned that "it is a Christian Settlement and our children must be kept away." The patron in whose honor the Settlement had been renamed several years earlier was once again quoted as arrogantly suggesting: "Let the Jewish women find out the nature of the house before they send their children there."²

These revelations may well have shocked many within the New York Jewish community, for until then muckraker and social reformer Jacob A. Riis had been publicly counted as one of the most knowledgeable and supportive friends of these new immigrants. The American Hebrew had described him just two years earlier as "a close observer in whom the philanthropic impulse has been ingrained by his journalistic experience." One month later, the same journal had praised him as "one whose judgment carries weight because of the fulness [sic] of his knowledge of existing conditions as well as the difficulties surrounding the solution of the problems involved."³That might well explain that newspaper's initial reticence to identify the New Yorker as an opponent by name. Indeed, respect for Riis' good works was so ingrained within local Jewry that, even after the exposés, some Jewish observers found it difficult to believe that Riis himself could be active in the missionizing seemingly going on in Henry Street. The Hebrew Standard, a vehicle which consistently spearheaded anti-conversionist drives, suggested that the reformer be given the benefit of the doubt by the Jewish community.

As a sign of the times, we choose to take the most optimistic view of thesituation. Having done this we may well ask, has not the impartial reviewer of the situation in which misery and degradation play so great a part permitted himself to become an agent of the soul savers whose personal Christianity resolves itself into a supreme effort to make conversions of children of Jewish parents.⁴

Riis, for his part, was quickly afforded the opportunity to refute newspaper allegations and to publicly disassociate himself from downtown conversionists. On August 26, 1903, just 12 days after the first charges appeared, Albert Lucas, secretary of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, wrote to Riis officially requesting that he issue a statement to the Jewish community explaining "the religious influence and work (if any) that is carried on at the Jacob Riis Home." But Riis' reply, which talked of "love for a young Jew in (whose) name the work at Henry Street began . . . and has been carried on all these many years" and which asserted that the "Gospel of Love shall be preached in that spot at least as long as we live," did little to allay Jewish suspicions. If anything, his failure to explicitly deny missionary objectives convinced Lucas, a grizzled veteran of many anticonversionist fights, that in Riis, Jews were encountering the most pernicious type of anti-Jewish foe. Here was a widely-respected social servant—seemingly above public reproach—who secreted his soul-saving goals beneath the rhetoric of Christian love.⁵

Lucas was soon troubled further by Riis' unexpected publication of their correspondence in the New York Evening Post in mid-September. Now it seemed that Riis was intent on publicly obscuring his anti-Jewish stance. And when the same exchange of letters appeared sometime later both in the American Hebrew and in the Churchman, a missionary publication, Lucas was undeniably persuaded that Riis was at one and the same time seeking to confound the Jewish community while truthfully appealing to his real clients, supporters of missionary societies.⁶

These private and public exchanges convinced Lucas and other ghetto spokesmen that from then on Riis' activities would have to be closely monitored and downtowners frequently reminded that the well-known reformer was no friend of theirs. Accordingly, when a Hebrew Standard reader later inquired whether "the Jacob Riis Settlement .. . is one of the places where Christianity is forced upon Jewish children," the newspaper replied: "The Jacob Riis Settlement is one of the worst offenders among the proselytizing influences on the lower East Side." And when Riis subsequently publicly supported the opening of 30 Federation of Churches Summer Vacation schools in the ghetto, the downtown journal reacted predictably: "That Jacob A. Riis gives his endorsement is only what is to be expected from him. His view of Christianity is that it should be forced into the lives of all the "lower half whether it wants it or not." Lucas publicly defined Riis' motives in establishing "proselytizing missions" as "in exactly the same spirit as the missionaries . . . sent abroad for converting the savage heathens." And by 1906 the Riis Settlement—one of many so-described "proselytizing missions"—had become the primary focus of Lucas-led anti-missionary activities. In March of that year, for example, the Jewish Center movement was created on the lower East Side "to provide as many suitable centers as possible where Jewish children and youths shall receive under Jewish influence—religious, physical and moral training." They planned to establish their first refuge "in the immediate vicinity of the Jacob Riis Home." It also followed that Lucas and his stalwarts would be quick to support a neighboring Catholic priest in his own attack against Riis' sectarian settlement efforts in Spring, 1908.⁷ Only then they were to find that the problem of opposing Jacob Riis had become somewhat more complicated. Now when attacked, the reformer piously denied any Christianizing motives whatsoever. More significantly, there were now Jewish spokesmen—most notably Rabbi Stephen S. Wise—who were prepared to testify to Riis' non-sectarian sincerity.

B. The Curry Incident

On Easter Sunday, 1908, Father James B. Curry, Rector of the St. James Roman Catholic Church on the Lower East Side denounced Riis and his settlement workers for allegedly "pauperizing the children and making grafters of their parents." He blasted them for "misleading the public and exaggerating conditions .. . to obtain money little of which reaches the poor." Most significantly, he pointedly accused Riis of seeking converts among Roman Catholic as well as Jewish children. In his remarks, which received front page coverage in the New York Times, Curry explained that Riis' original intention had been to proselytize only among Jews. But when, "several of the rich patrons of the Settlement House went there and found a number of young Jews, they made a protest against having the money used exclusively for Jews." From then on "the settlement folks decided to draw in a few St. James boys."⁸

These new revelations certainly came as no surprise to Lucas. Riis had now been proved an enemy of all poor immigrants. Still, the Curry protest was an important outsider's reminder to downtown Jews that the missionary threat continued. Lucas' letter of support for Curry published in the Times predictably reiterated his long standing perception: "Mr. Riis' settlement societies are proselytizing societies to the fullest extent and . . . endeavor to attract children from Roman Catholic and Jewish congregations." This time, however, Lucas closed with a word of advice for Riis. Speaking on behalf of both downtown's Catholics and Jews, Lucas suggested that the reformer "transfer his activities to Hell's Kitchen . . . We feel we are able to take care of ourselves."⁹

Riis had no intention of moving to midtown Manhattan. His Easter repose—or "The Peace of Quiet Week" as he called it—shattered by these new allegations, Riis was in no mood to take travel or other instructions from the "perennial Mr. Lucas." Angered and hurt by this renewed impugning of his reputation, Riis now staunchly and explicitly denied that "proselytizing" or "sectarianism" played a role in Henry Street activities. And also unlike five years earlier, Riis set out to publicly remove all doubt about the sincerity of his labors.¹⁰

Riis opened his defense by questioning the reliability of his critics. Riis countercharged that Curry was a liar and "the greatest hardship .. . the poor of the tenements have .. . to endure." And Lucas, he declared, was motivated by crass materialistic designs. Recalling his first encounter with downtown anti-missionary forces, Riis wrote:

We invited a body of Jewish rabbis .. . to see if they could find any trace of religious instruction there. The upshot of that was a proposition to 'sell' our house to the Jews. One does not traffic in settlement houses as in stocks and bonds."¹¹

Privately, Riis was even more vitriolic and racist when he identified Curry and Lucas as sub-humans. He wrote to his daughter ten days after the new controversy broke:

Have you heard anything . . . about the war that has raged over our settlement house? The Catholic priest and Jewish rabbi in the neighborhood have jumped as one with all their eight feet (emphasis mine) . . . declaring me a grafter and a proselytizer.¹²

Riis' unqualified denial and his strident counterattack were heard and accepted most warmly within Protestant "non-sectarian" social reform circles. The Charities and the Commons, an organ of the Charity Organization Society, declared: "We hold no brief for settlements when they are fairly criticized, but unless the newspapers have done him grievously wrong, Father Curry has borne false witness." The priest was advised to "emulate the settlement in their practical concern for . . . the young people of his parish rather than fulminate against his neighbors."¹³

Their sentiments were echoed, surprisingly, by a number of Jewish settlements house workers. David Blaustein, director of the Educational Alliance, led the rally to the defense of the Christian activist when he characterized the new charges "as a rule not justifiable." While admitting that some individuals did enter the welfare field to make human and other capital out of it, in this instance it clearly was not the case. Lucas' five year campaign to discredit Riis within his community also had seemingly made little impact on Henry Moskowitz, a Jewish leader of the downtown Ethical Culture Society who now responded that in his 16 years of service he had never witnessed "any attempt at direct or'insidious' proselytizing." And Charles Bernheimer, assistant headworker at the University Settlement, reported in Riis' defense that committed workers placed great importance upon the immigrant maintaining his ancestral faith. All settlements, he emphasized, "transmute .. . the morality of the fathers and mothers in Israel in (making) for the genteel, decent and honorable young man and woman."¹⁴

Such support did not satisfy Riis. Lucas and Curry could be discredited, but future liars and opportunists would arise unless the public understood exactly where he stood on the settlement/missionary issue. He searched for a vehicle which would "clear the air for good." The Outlook, a Progressive periodical, published his definitive rejoinder in May 1908.¹⁵

The purpose of settlement house work, Riis there admitted, was undeniably "religious," but only in the sense that it sprang "from the impulse to help the brother . . . to quicken . . . the rebirth of faith in an all-loving Father whose children we are, call Him what we will." Proselytizing, on the other hand, was totally foreign to his thought and action. Indeed, he argued, one of the House's goals was to work with and not against existing local immigrant religious institutions to better serve "the Jews and Catholics . . . who are the real settlement."

Christianity, he acknowledged, did play a role in the House's life, but only once a year, at Christmas. Then Riis claimed the privilege "which nothing could make (him) surrender, to talk .. . of the peace and good will which He came to bring whose birthday we celebrate." And to graphically underscore the non-denominational nature of this ceremony Riis pointed out that once he had invited Rabbi Stephen S. Wise to participate in the Yuletide ceremony. There he had instructed his youthful listeners that "every Jew and every Christian in our house should be as big as Rabbi Wise, to come up to his ideal." These actions, Riis believed, were in no wise offensive to downtown clients. Rather, they contributed to "bettering spiritually the condition of Jews and Roman Catholics alike."¹⁶

Rabbi Wise, Riis' co-celebrant in the Christmas ceremony, was one Jewish leader who heartily endorsed Riis' multi-faceted apologia. Opposed to Lucas' allegations and apparently untroubled by Riis' published anti-Semitic opinions, Wise now redoubled his efforts to convince his co-religionists that Riis was no missionary but a thoughtful and sensitive friend of the Jews. Accordingly, Wise agreed to participate in an inaugural "Maccabean Festival" which was held at the RiisHouse that following December. It was there that Wise reportedly declared that Riis' "unselfish desire to do good to grown persons and children regardless of creed and without attempt at proselytizing, had given him a new conception of Christianity."¹⁷

Several years later, Wise recounted the sincere plea which brought him to Henry Street for the 1908 Hanukah observance:

Soon after I came to New York, Riis came to me saying "I must have your help." He put it in all earnesteness and simplicity, saying: "You know I have no wish to proselytize among your people. I want them to be the best of Jews and I want you to come down to the Riis Settlement and tell them so." And then his was the plan of having me come down to the Jewish boys and girls who foregathered at the Settlement and point out to them the heroic story of the Maccabees. Riis' eyes glistened as he himself spoke to me of the Maccabees. He could not have spoken with deeper admiration if he had been thinking of his Danish forebears . . . and we had the . . . celebration . . . This was Riis' way of answering those who protested against what they conceived to be his attempt to wean children from Judaism and win them to his own faith.¹⁸

The debate over Riis and his House within the New York Jewish community would continue for at least one more year. In December 1909 the Hebrew Standard angrily reported that the Lilies of the Valley Circle of Young Judea, a Zionist organization led by such luminaries as Professor Israel Friedlaender, Henrietta Szold and Rabbi Mordecai M. Kaplan, was holding its meetings at the RiisSettlement. Were these Zionists unaware, the periodical wondered out loud, that the Henry Street center was "persistent and nefarious in its proselytizing activities?" And didn't they understand that their presence in the House would be used by missionaries "to show that Jews were in favor of the work done at the Riis Settlement?"¹⁹

The Young Judeans responded that as an organization which exists "to counter missionary influence and to encourage Jewish programs" they had no fear either of the impact of meeting in non-Jewish surroundings nor of insidious cooptation by conversionists. But that was not even the case. Riis, they asserted, encouraged their efforts and "never interfered in the slightest way with the strictly Jewish programming of the circle. Their patron placed but one restriction on their efforts. "The study of Hebrew was denied," they calmly reported, "as the study of all foreign languages has never been permitted in the House." For them, as for Wise, Riis was no foe of Jews or Judaism.²⁰

II. EXPLORING THE TWO JEWISH VIEWS

Albert Lucas perceived Jacob Riis as an insidious missionary foe. He was supported by newspaper editorials and joined in his struggle by a seemingly unlikely ally, a neighboring Catholic priest. Stephen S. Wise, on the other hand, saw the downtown reformer as a warm Christian friend. Jewish settlement workers and to a lesser extent Young Judeans echoed his words. How could a man so consistently reviled by one segment of New York Jewry retain the admiration and support of others within the same community?

Albert Lucas probably would have answered that the key was trickery. Riis, he would have said, was a missionary unchanged from 1903-1909 who through differing means of subterfuge convinced Wise and other gullible Jewish spokesmen that he was no soul saver. But to prove that a conspiracy was afoot, Lucas would have to first establish that Riis was a missionary. And such evidence was not then, and is not now, easily forthcoming. Since Riis never explicitly admitted, publicly or privately, that he was proselytizing, proof of his conversionist designs can and could be only inferred from statements and activities.²¹

Consider Riis' publication of the Lucas letters in the Churchman, the action which clinched the Jewish leader's suspicions. The downtowner undoubtedly would have argued that the choice of this publication reflected Riis' desire to have those who ordinarily followed and supported missionary groups understand that he was one of them. And had Lucas known of Riis' contemporaneous correspondence with other settlement house leaders, he would have further suggested that the Henry Street workers wanted financial more than moral support. The Lucas controversy had begun at the height of the institution's fund-raising season. And Riis was concerned that Churchman readers "who wish to contribute to our fund" be made aware of his good work downtown. Lucas would have sadly observed that for Riis the newspaper allegations could have not come at a more opportune moment. He was able to adroitly coopt Jewish complaints both to publicize the Christian work at his home and to raise funds from missionary sources to continue his nefarious labors.²²

But does an appeal to Christians who support conversionists conclusively prove that the settlement workers making the pitch are themselves missionaries? Is it not possible that the acute exigencies of fund raising convinced a clever Riis to publish a most ambiguous letter in a conversionist journal permitting many potential backers to believe that his settlement was a missionary center. More convincing evidence would have to be offered to prove that Riis was precisely what Lucas said he was.

A document from the Riis family unpublished papers which suggests that cooptation motivated the settlement's invitation to Wise to participate in the 1908 Maccabean Festival might provide just such evidence. Consider this undated letter which was obviously composed in December 1908, written by Riis' wife to the Settlement's headworker:

Don't be worried about the Jewish festival. Charles McDowell [a settlement trustee] thinks it is a fine idea and he is a good Christian and no one is a better Christian, if being a lover of Christ makes a Christian . . .²³

Was Mrs. Riis reassuring Henry Street workers that the celebration of Hanukah constituted no deviation from their longstanding promotion of Christian policies? Was the Jewish festival to be used ultimately as a way of bringing Jews to Christianity? Unfortunately, once again, bits of inferential evidence do not unquestionably substantiate the anti-missionary's understanding of Riis' motivations and tactics.

A change in Riis' approach to settlement house work might better explain the basis of the Jewish split over the downtown reformer. If the uncorroborated 1903 newspaper allegations were in fact correct, if Riis was then a missionary, it is possible that by 1908 and due specifically to fundraising considerations, he had been forced to back-track and could no longer impose his religious views upon his youthful charges. It might then follow that each Jewish group knew a "different" Jacob Riis. Wise et al knew, mistakenly revered, and vocally supported a man who had grudgingly abandoned his Christianizing goals. Lucas and his supporters, on the other hand, were either unaware of or were unmoved by any changes in their long-standing opponent.

This supposition would offer as evidence of Riis' change the tenor of his reaction to Jewish attacks in 1903 as compared with his response to the Curry-Lucas renewal five years later. In the former instance, the settlement patron was seemingly pleasantly surprised by the furor created and calmly planned the exploitation of this publicity. He took the initiative in publishing the Lucas letters and was apparently troubled only when the Evening Post buried his correspondence on the back page.

²⁴ In 1908, Riis was publicly angered by the Curry-Lucas statements. And privately he and his associates appeared very concerned over the conceivable negative impact of the affair. Contributors were writing in, bothered that Christianizing, graft and/or pauperization could be rife in the House. Here, quite unlike his first encounter with public criticism, Riis was seemingly compelled by outside pressure to defend his work and to widely disavow proselytism both to the public and to his supporters.²⁵

This pronounced shift in public demeanor and private behavior, it is suggested, reflected the settlement's changed financial/ideological profile. In 1903, Riis was a missionary reaching out to a limited—albeit substantial—parochial Christian constituency. Over the next five years, the settlement's needs required that Riis broaden its charity base. Riis realized that new contributors might include affluent Jews and others who would never support a Christian mission.²⁶ Placing practicalities ahead of theology, he abandoned the proselytizing once regnant in his House. Having changed his orientation and squarely facing a $500 budget deficit, he was being unfairly accused; hence his anger and concern.²⁷

But to prove that Wise et al met and came to know a "new" Riis requires more than just the extant inferential evidence here available. Riis was certainly in 1908 more troubled than before. But the roots of his discontent cannot be determined. Riis' settlement records are significantly almost silent on any supposed change of tactics or approaches. There is but one reference, early in 1908, to a policy shift; a suggestion that consideration be given to the hiring of a "Jewish assistant."²⁸ But it cannot be determined whether that unrealized move was designed to meet Jewish and supporter needs and requests or to simply mislead Jewish opponents. Indeed, this same inferential evidence can be used to argue, with the same measure of uncertainty, that Riis was in 1908—to use Lucas' favorite term—as "disingenuous" as before. But now he was out to trick not only Jewish clients but Gentile supporters as well. He had broadened his charity base since 1903 with private assurances of non-sectarianism and consequently was obligated to publicly reassure potential critics both from within and without. Public apologias, private letters and most dramatically the cooperation of an unwitting Wise was the answer.

Neither trickery nor change can conclusively explain the roots of the split Jewish view of the reformer. The more convincing argument is that the two groups of Jews who witnessed the same consistent pronouncements and activities defined Riis' sincere, if poorly conceived and communicated, ideas differently. But only Wise et al correctly understood and accented Riis' ideas and intentions. For Riis never perceived himself as an active missionary with conscious designs upon Jewish souls. He was rather a committed believing Christian who felt strongly that universal Christian teachings were basic to settlement work and could contribute much towards the immigrants' Americanization and cultural upbringing.

A close reading of some of Riis' unpublished papers and less-publicized statements make evident just this commitment to Christianity within the settlement, short of proselytism. In an undated draft speech to settlement workers, written in a tone highly reminiscent of his 1908 public apologia, Riis observed: "Settlement work, Christian work . . . not sectarian not preaching but Christian. It is because you are a Christian that you are there searching for your brothers."²⁹

To Riis, settlement Americanization goals could be reached only under Christian auspices. Discounting completely the "non-sectarian approach towards Americanization of the immigrants," Riis once declared at a settlement meeting that "social work . . . could not have developed except in a Christian country." But he was also quick to assert that a Christian environment did not necessitate making all clients Christians. "It is not to proselytize Hebrew children," he wrote, "but to teach Hebrew and Gentile children what Christianity means." And Christianity as expressed here meant the universal teachings of peace, good will and brotherhood as well as the essential American values of loyalty and patriotism, all exemplified by Jesus and transmitted through universalized Christian traditions.³⁰

Riis sincerely believed that this devoutly Christian approach to settlement house work should not have pricked Jewish sensibilities. Were they all not engaged in the search for the best means of changing the newcomers? Dr. Wise and others had no trouble with his methods. Riis' social theology did, however, greatly disturb Lucas and his constituency who generally had little patience for Christian good works and who saw the missionary's subtle undermining of the immigrant's faith in the methods he used.-"

This interpretation effectively clarifies the mystery of Riis' changed demeanor in response to Jewish attacks between 1903 and 1908. In the earlier instance, Riis did not feel threatened because he was simply asked to explain the nature of the religious activities at the settlement. And he thought that his references to "Gospel of Love" or to "his love for a young Jew" in no way implied that proselytism was the settlement's goal. Riis, in this view, sincerely believed his parting words to Lucas in 1903: "If there is anything in that [Christian settlement] spirit not commendable to your people, I am very sorry for you. I think you are wrong." Riis' publication of the Lucas letters may well have reflected fund-raising priorities, but not as a missionary center. That many downtown Jews misunderstood his statement was, for Riis, either a separate issue or unimportant.³²

In 1908, the encounter with immigrant criticism was quite different. Riis was now publicly and explicitly attacked as a missionary. He was startled and angered that his message of Christian concern had been misconstrued. But more importantly, he was also accused of misusing funds designated for the poor and of breaking the spirit of dependent families. This latter attack, coming at a time when settlements were being widely criticized for their alleged insensitivity to client needs, constituted a most serious challenge both to his and his institution's basic integrity. The proselytism charge was now one of several pressing allegations which required concerted public and private defense.³³

This interpretation helps us understand the motivation which led the several professional Jewish social workers to actively support Riis' apologia. For them, the Curry-Lucas attacks undeniably represented the expansion of an on-goingcrisis of confidence between them and their fellow Jewish immigrant clients. Lucas must have long been a thorn in their side too. He was a most vocal critic of the lack of Jewishness in German-run philanthropic efforts on the lower East Side.³⁴

Rabbi Wise's own affinity for Riis' cause also grew out of a long-standing commitment to the settlement house movement. But it was strengthened greatly by his close personal relationship with the reformer and clinched by his belief that the mixture of universal Christian and American social values in settlement work in no way threatened to undermine the Jewishness of ghetto clients.³⁵ From that vantage point, Wise could participate in a Yuletide-Christmas celebration without apprehensions. The rabbi may have well seen this joyful mixture of Christian and Jewish holidays as a major statement by his Gentile colleagues that Judaism too possessed universal and American values worthy of exhortation to immigrant clients.³⁶

Rabbi Wise was not alone in his belief that Christianity's universal messages as taught to downtowners posed no real barrier to Jewish continuity. Consider, for example, the reaction of two other well-known Americanized, religiously liberal Jews to downtown protests over Christmas celebrations in the public schools. While downtown leaders feared that "missionaries find the task made much easier when the minds of our children are impregnated with a sympathy for Christianity through the celebration of Christmas," uptown spokesmen like Rabbi Maurice Harris of Harlem's Temple Israel declared that he was "sorry to see a week usually associated with peace and good will made one of discord." He protested against "the well-meaning but indiscreet people who rushed into print with grievances . . . which made the judicious grieve."³⁷

Similarly, at the height of the 1906 controversy over Christmas pageants in the New York schools, Rabbi Judah Magnes of Temple Emanu-El preached that "the true Hebrew, the real Hebrew resents the activity of those Hebrews who would strip Christmas of all its beauty." Turning to what Jews could derive from another's religious observance, he declared:

Peace on earth. Good will to men; glory to God in the highest. Shall not the day come when, we, too, shall be able to sing this? Sing it as Jews, as men and women who have something to give to this world.³⁸

When taken to task by downtown journalists for seemingly advocating that Jews actually celebrate the birth of the Christian messiah, Magnes denied that that was his intention. Although he would never suggest that Jews accept the "god-like life" of Jesus as the truth, he reiterated that "peace on earth, good will to men, this is a universal thought in which we as Jews could join."³⁹

Albert Lucas would have nothing of his liberal Jewish colleagues' distinctions between the offensive parochial and acceptable universal teachings of Christianity. For him, Christianizing influences of any sort constituted the most pressing external threat to Jewish continuity in America. Lucas best expressed his position in response to a 1905 New York Sun editorial which criticized his attacks against Christian-run settlements and which saw nothing wrong in clubs "carried on in the love of Christ," if they "make a larger and truer life possible" for their Jewish clients.⁴⁰

"The violence of my attacks upon the settlements," Lucas declared, "has grown with each new recruit to their number until today I look upon all assertions of "unsectarianism,' "undenominationalism' and "altruism' with suspicion." Lucas further argued that "it is not from a genuine altruistic love of mankind, unmixed with proselytizing intentions that these Christians seek . . . the lives of our children." In all events, he concluded "no believer in . . . constitutional American institutions will ask . . . that our boys and girls shall forswear their own faith."⁴¹

Accordingly, although Lucas unquestionably believed that Riis was a missionary, the issue of the reformer's hidden motives was, ultimately, of secondary importance. Even if Riis and his fellows were sincerely committed only to theadvocacy of universal Christian values in Americanization work, they would have still constituted a major threat to the immigrant community. As he saw it, Christian workers inculcated a disrespect for the Jewish heritage and paved the way both for individual conversions and mass disaffection from ancestral faith. For Lucas, downtown Jews were faced with a threefold agenda: overt missionaries had to be stopped, subtle conversionists identified and undermined, and immigrant Jews convinced that Americanized Jewish institutions—like his Jewish Center—could teach universal and national virtues as well if not better than Christian settlements. Thus committed, he opposed all of Jacob Riis' efforts.⁴²

CONCLUSION

Wise and his fellows may have well been correct in their understanding that Riis was no missionary foe. But were they also right in their depiction of him as a warm Christian friend? A review of his variegated reactions to his encounters with Jewish criticism suggests that they too may not have truly understood the reformer's propensities and attitudes.

Insensitivity towards the needs and fears of immigrant clients marked Riis' responses to Jewish indictments. He was either unaware or unconcerned that East European Jews, coming from a world where the Cross meant only conversion, if not deprivations and pogroms, could not differentiate between Christian methods and Christianizing goals. He made no attempt to acknowledge and dispel downtown apprehensions over the significance of crucifixes on the door, New Testament bible stores and/or Christian holiday commemorations. He certainly never entertained the thought that good Americanization work could be done in a truly non-sectarian or Jewish environment. And he never explicitly placed distance between himself and self-declared missionaries operating downtown.⁴³

This uncompromising attitude was first manifest at the very beginning of the controversy when he brusquely informed reporters that the Cross on the settlement door would never be removed. It reappeared soon thereafter, when he published the Lucas letters without comment in both the general press and in Christian and Jewish journals, leaving the documents open to a variety of interpretations or misconceptions. It was seen again, when he accused an advocate of Jewish social work and education of the crassest of materialistic designs. And it culminated in a published comprehensive apologia which spoke to fears of contributors, Progressives, Christian colleagues and Americanized Jews. Not a word was addressed to downtown clients or immigrant leaders. The Maccabee celebration may have been a step in the right direction. But a more sensitive patron would have met with his critics and attempted to explain away nagging misperceptions.

But that was not Riis' style. He could see no validity in immigrant protests over Christian teachings in the ghetto. If anything, he was moved more than once to anger and to expressions of anti-Semitism by Jewish activists. Consider his troubled and threatening response to Lucas' 1906 efforts to eliminate Christmas celebrations from the public schools:

I have just written to Mr. Schiff . . . asking him to call off the Jews who are meddling with Xmas [sic] in the public schools warning them that that [emphasis his] was bad. I did not know they had any festivals in the schools but since they have, the Jews [emphasis his] must not question it. If they do, they will precipitate trouble they will be sorry for. The reply will come in an inquiry as to how many Jewish teachers there are in those same schools and what may be their influence upon the children if that [emphasis his] is their spirit. It is not, but once that dog is loosed, we shall have trouble as they had abroad and of peace and good will there will be an end. I for one will not stand it for a moment.⁴⁴

Years of living among the immigrants and of reporting on the difficulties of their adjustment to America had not sensitized him to their fears of Christianity nor convinced him of the legitimacy of their conceptions of Americanization.⁴⁵

It may be that Wise et al were personally too close to the reformer to see thesefundamental faults in his attitudes towards their fellow Jews. It is also possible that these same Americanized Jews engaged in social reform work suffered from the same myopia to immigrant sensibilities. But for us it is clear, whether his contemporary supporters acknowledged it or not, Jacob Riis though probably no missionary, was certainly no friend of those he was pledged to serve.⁴⁶

NOTES

* Research for this article was undertaken under a grant from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture.

The following abbreviations are used:

AH American Hebrew

AJA American Jewish Archives

HS Hebrew Standard

JARNSP-NYPL Jacob A. Riis Neighborhood Settlement Papers-New York Public Library

JARP-LC Jacob A. Riis Papers-Library of Congress

JARP-NYPL Jacob A. Riis Papers-New York Public Library

JHSP-AJA Jacob H. Schiff Papers-American Jewish Archives

LMP-AJA Louis Marshall Papers-American Jewish Archives, Permission of James Marshall

YT Yiddishes Tageblatt

¹AH, August 14, 1903, pp. 407-408.

²YT, August 26, 1903, p. 8.

³AH, July 17, 1901, p. 284; August 2, 1901, p. 387.

⁴HS, November 9, 1903, p. 6.

⁵ New York Evening Post, September 16, 1903, p. 16. Soon after receiving Riis' reply, a concerned Lucas wrote to Louis Marshall, another long-time opponent of missionaries, and characterized Riis' response as "about as disingenuous a communication as could have been written." Lucas argued that Jews would have to offer "bribe for bribe" to stop conversionists. Albert Lucas to Louis Marshall, September 3, 1903, LMP-AJA.

⁶AH, September 25, 1903, p. 614; The Churchman, September 26, 1903, p. 351; Albert Lucas to Louis Marshall, September 17, 103, LMP-AJA. Riis may have unclouded ever so slightly Jewish knowledge of what exactly was going on in the Settlement when he spoke with uptown Rabbis H. P. Mendes and Joseph Ascher and granted their request to be told the names of Jewish children attending his home and whether they came with their parents' consent. There was no reported discussion of the curriculum taught on Henry Street. There is also no indication either in the Jewish press or in the Riis Neighborhood House Papers whether such a visit ever took place. The Mendes papers (AJA) are totally silent on this incident. See, Minutes and Reports, Executive Committee, Jacob A. Riis Neighborhood Settlement, Executive Committee Meeting, November 13, 1903. JARNSP-NYPL. One should also note that despite the negative publicity generated by the exposés, Jewish children seem to have continued to attend the Riis Home in significant numbers. See, Minutes and Reports, Boys' Department, Jacob A. Riis Neighborhood Settlement, Report of F. W. Maaloe, Director of Boys and Men's Work, January 1904, JARNSP-NYPL.

⁷HS, April 20, 1906, p. 8; May 25, 1906, p. 8; AH, August 5, 1905, p. 266; March30, 1906, p. 578. Although Riis was now frequently seen as no friend of the Jews, when he succeeded in clearly non-sectarian work (e.g. pleading for children's playgrounds in Chicago), he was praised by the Jewish press. See, YT, June 3, 1905, p. 8.

⁸New York Times, April 13, 1980, p. 1; see also New York Sun, April 13, 1908, p. 4; April 15, 1908, p. 4.

⁹New York Times, April 14, 1908, p. 1.

¹⁰New York Times, April 15, 1908, p. 5; The Outlook, May 9, 1908, p. 69.

¹¹ New York Sun, April 15, 1908, p. 4; New York Times, April 15, 1908, p. 5.

¹² Jacob Riis to Kate, April 24, 1903, JARP-NYPL. The 1908 attack on Riis seems to have disturbed greatly many members of Riis' family. One of them could not fathom "that a man who gives himself as he does should be hated by anyone." See Marietta to Kate, April, 1908, JARPNYPL.

¹³The Charities and the Commons, April 18, 1908, pp. 89-90.

¹⁴ Blaustein quoted from New York Sun, April 16, 1908, in The Charities and the Commons, April 25, 1908, pp. 140-141; see also AH, May 9, 1908, p. 566.

¹⁵ Jacob Riis to Miss Charlotte A. Waterbury, April 28, 1908, JARP-NYPL.

¹⁶The Outlook, May 9, 1908, pp. 69-71. This full-length apologia was followed one month later by a shorter open letter "To our Supporters" detailing the course of the 1908 controversy. Lucas and Curry were described as having "not the remotest idea of what we are trying to do here, though they are our near neighbors." It also noted Wise's appearance at the House a year earlier. This document was to be reproduced in the thousands of copies to be used if they were ever again attacked. See, Jacob A. Riis to Miss Waterbury, June 18, 1908, JARP-NYPL. See also "To Our Supporters," June 1908, JARP-NYPL.

¹⁷New York Times, December 21, 1908, p. 2.

¹⁸ Stephen S. Wise to Rev. Newell Dwight Hollis, D.D., June 12, 1914, JARP-NYPL.

¹⁹HS, December 24, 1909, p. 8.

²⁰HS, December 31, 1909, p. 8. In spite of the protests the Riis Settlement House continued to serve and was appreciated in its service by its Jewish clients. Controversy and condemnations never placed the House as out of bounds for Jewish youths. A Souvenir Journal commemorating the 28th anniversary of the Settlement lists the alumni of each of the young men's clubs housed at the Settlement. Among them are the Riis and Wingate Clubs organized in 1907—after the first exposé—and which numbered 12 and 13 boys with Jewish-sounding names as former members. The Seminole and Spartan Clubs, established in 1913, boasted of 12 and 19 Jewish former members, respectively. See Souvenir Journal, Jacob A. Riis House (New York: 1920), JARP-NYPL. Indeed, one Jewish former client Elias A. Cohen was destined to be a leader in Jewish religious communal affairs. See Elias A. Cohen letter to Roger Williams Riis, undated, 1938, JARP-NYPL.

²¹ There is unfortunately no recorded public reaction from Lucas to the statements made by Wise, Blaustein, et. al at the time of the Curry controversy or to the 1909 debate. The Lucas papers are not extant and the Wise papers contain no correspondence with Lucas.

²² Riis to Mrs. Julian Heath, September 24, 1903, JARPNYPL.

²³ Mary Riis to Miss Charlotte A. Waterbury, undated, JARP-NYPL.

²⁴ Jacob A. Riis to Mrs. Julian Heath, September 21, 1903, JARP-NYPL.

²⁵ Charlotte A. Waterbury to C. E. Halberstadt, April 20, 1908, JARP-NYPL; H. S. Braucher to Clara Field, April 22, 1908, JARP-NYPL; see also Riis' letter circulated "To Our Supporters" (June, 1908) JARP-NYPL, which reviewed the entire Curry affair with a decidedly apologetic tone.

²⁶ Jacob Schiff, Felix Warburg and a Mr. Seligman were all important Jewish benefactors of the Settlement in 1908. Indeed two years earlier the three had raised $2,100 to build a gymnasium designated for use by Jewish clients. See Jacob A. Riis to Jacob Schiff, November 20, 1906, JHSP-AJA. Nathan Bijur, Nathan Straus and Miriam K. Wildberg of the Columbian Council of the Council of Jewish Women were also either Jewish friends or associates of the settlement leader. Each penned a warm letter of condolence to Riis in May, 1905 at the death of Riis' first wife, Elizabeth. See Nathan Bijur to Jacob A. Riis, May 19, 1905; Nathan Straus to Jacob A. Riis, May 18, 1905; Miriam K. Wildberg to Jacob A. Riis, June 11, 1905, JARP-NYPL. Riis' relationship with Schiff needs further elucidation, for although Schiff never expressed himself on the Settlement's ideological position, not in 1903 nor in 1908, it is clear that he was a financial supporter of Riis' Home as early as 1902. See Jacob A. Riis to Mrs. Julian Heath, December 18, 1902, JARP-NYPL, which discusses a Schiff contribution to the Riis building fund. Could it be that as Schiffs influence grew in the Settlement Riis became more sensitive to Jewish concerns? Unfortunately, the few extant Schiff papers from that period note just one instance of the Jewish patron reacting to activities in the Riis House—fund raising in 1906. There was no discussion of the ideology then taught in the House. See Jacob H. Schiff to Jacob A. Riis, undated, 1906, JHSP-AJA. As previously noted, Schiff never entered the public debate over Riis' settlement activities.

²⁷The Outlook, May 9, 1908, p. 88. This issue which contains Riis' complete public response to Curry-Lucas also includes a plea for funds to offset a $500 deficit.

²⁸ Mary Riis to Miss Charlotte Waterbury, undated, 1908, JARNSP-NYPL.

²⁹ Jacob A. Riis, "To Settlement Workers," (n.d.), JARPNYPL. See also Riis, "Pamphlet," (n.d.), JARP-NYPL.

³⁰YT, July 1, 1904, p. 8.; The Outlook, May 29, 1909, p. 8.

³¹ Riis' crucial definitions of narrow sectarianism, nonsectarianism and Christian non-sectarianism in settlement work is seen clearly in a specific provision of his will. Fearful that the House not "fall into narrow sectarian ways," he appointed a 17-member board of advisors to insure that upon his death the settlement ideology remain Christian non-sectarian, to wit, "that they keep it faithful to the zeal and spirit of our Christian faith, that Thou love they neighbor as thyself be he Christian, Jew or pagan." Interestingly no Jews were included as projected advisory board members, although Schiff was a trustee of the will. See Jacob A. Riis, "Will," November 7, 1911, JARP-LC.

³² New York Evening Post, September 16, 1903, p. 16.

³³ From 1902 on there were yearly criticisms of the settlements, Jewish and non-Jewish, published in the Yiddish and Anglo-Jewish press. Settlements were accused of undermining the religious faith of Jews, of alienating children from their parents, of failing to check criminality, of encouraging criminality by restricting the natural exuberance of youths and, of course, of promoting proselytizing. See, as examples of discussions of this subject, HS, April 11, 1902, p. 6; July 6, 1903, p. 8; October 18, 1907, p. 8; YT, July 15, 1903, p. 5; July 22, 1903, p. 8; AH, May 27, 1904, p. 507; June 3, 1904, p. 75; December 7, 1906, p. 108.

³⁴ For discussions of the origins and purposes of the Albert Lucas Religious Classes, the forerunner of the Jewish Center, established downtown both to counter missionaries and to promote more intensively Jewish programming for children than then offered by existing German-run settlements, see HS, June 26, 1903, p. 8; July 21, 1905, p. 8; May 13, 1905, p. 8; AH, April 14, 1905, p. 645.

³⁵ Rabbi Wise learned first hand of Riis' deep social commitment based on religious faith from an earlier Christmas time incident in Portland, Oregon, where he was a rabbi in 1904. Arriving in town on a lecture tour, Riis was "getting a little troubled about where to get in a little kindness to someone in need before Xmas [sic]." Riis subsequently found a woman suffering from rheumatism and with Wise's assistance raised monies from local philanthropists to cover expensive medical treatments. Riis himself donated one-third of his honorarium from his lecture at Wise's synagogue to this good cause and joyously recorded this event in a letter to his wife back in New York. Undoubtedly impressed by this sincere act of piety, Wise agreed to help that poor woman's family celebrate their Christmas. See Jacob A. Riis to My Sweet Darling Lamb, December 18, 1904, JARP-NYPL. For the rabbi, participation in that seasonal observance certainly did not reflect a belief in a parochial Christian faith. It was rather a natural outgrowth of his support for good social work done in the name of another man's faith.

Wise's ongoing support for Christian social activism in the New York ghetto is reflected in the appearance of such well known social gospelers as Walter Rauschenbusch, Edward Everett Hale and John Haynes Holmes in the Free Synagogue pulpit. Riis himself spoke there in 1907 and 1912. Indeed, the activities of the Free Synagogue paralleled and were influenced by those of these Christian activists. One might also suggest that Wise's apparent serenity towards the issue of Christian teachings—universal or not—within the immigrant community had something to do with his own contemporaneous belief that the message of Jesus, as opposed to the teachings of Christianity, had something to teach both Jews and Christians. Wise first expressed this view in 1900 when he suggested that Jewish Sunday School instruction include Jesus as a Jewish prophet. He reiterated this idea in several sermons in Portland in 1905. And later on in his career, his sermon "A Jew's View of Jesus" caused a major stir within American Jewish ranks. Stephen S. Wise, "Is it Possible to Have a Fellowship of the Churches," Beth Israel Pulpit, March, 1905, pp. 31-45; Melvin I. Urofsky, "Stephen S. Wise and the "Jesus Controversy," Midstream, June/July 1980, pp. 36-40.

³⁶ In the early years of his career, Wise frequently preached on Judaism's ability to teach the ideals of morality, ethics and social justice as well as Christianity. See, for example, Stephen S. Wise, "The National Church Federation," Beth Israel Pulpit, November, 1905, pp. 108-118. And Riis, to be sure, made a point at the Chanukah celebration of noting what Christians could learn about brotherhood, loyalty and patriotism from the Maccabees. See The Outlook, May 29, 1909, p. 8.

³⁷HS, December 15, 1905, p. 5; AH, January 11, 1907, p. 256.

³⁸AH, December 28, 1906, p. 201; HS, December 28, 1906, p. 4.

³⁹HS, December 28, 1906, p. 8.

⁴⁰ New York Sun, August 2, 1905, reprinted in HS, August 4, 1905, p. 8.

⁴¹HS, August 4, 1905, p. 5.

⁴² One of the major problems which Lucas faced—apart from the identification of who his foes actually were—was the question of fund raising to continue his struggle. Could it be that Lucas really knew that Riis was not a missionary, but used his well-known figure as a focus for his own pecuniary purposes? Unfortunately, the total absence of Lucas' papers makes the determination of this conceivable hidden agenda the most problematic of all. See on his fund raising problems, HS, July 8, 1904, p. 10; July 21, 1905, p. 8. For a critique of Lucas' zealousness by one contemporary downtowner see, AH, July 28, 1905, p. 235.

⁴³ In his frequent attempt to rouse downtown Jews from their complacency about Christian work downtown, Lucas often evoked the imagery of what the Cross meant to Jews in Eastern Europe. He would remark that at a time when Jews still in Russia were suffering martyrdom, New York Jews were oblivious to Christian incursions within this free country. See, for example, HS, December 15, 1905, p.5.

⁴⁴ Jacob A. Riis to Jane Robbins, December 26, 1906, JARP-LC.

⁴⁵ This interpretation of Riis' attitudes towards immigrant Jews tends to contradict Richard Tuerk's recent article which argues that as Riis got to know the immigrants better!he grew in sensitivity to their problems. Tuerk characterizes Riis as having been "blatantly anti-Semitic" when he wrote How the Other Half Lives in 1890. However, "as the American public became increasingly antagonistic towards the immigrants . . . Riis became more compassionate and even militant in his defense of immigrants in general and Jews in particular." This growth argument is based almost exclusively upon Riis' published writings and pays little attention to Riis' private papers. See Richard Tuerk, "Jacob Riis and the Jews," New-York Historical Society, Quarterly, 63, 3 (July, 1979), 179-199. Our work follows the older historiographical view of Riis as concerned with the poverty of Jews but unaware of client ideas and social needs. See, for examples of this interpretation, Isidore S. Meyer's review of Hutchins Hapgood, The Spirit of the Ghetto, American Jewish Historical Quarterly, 60, 4 (June, 1970), 545; Irving Howe, World of Our Fathers (New York: 1976), pp. 396-397; and Lewis Fried, "Jacob Riis and the Jews . . . ," American Studies, 20, 1 (Spring, 1979), 5-25. This latter work delves into much of Riis' private papers and views in understanding Riis' Christian view of social work and his insensitivity to different views of how to approach immigrants. He only notes in passing Jewish response to Riis.

⁴⁶ Riis' anti-Semitic references were clearly restricted to un-Americanized, immigrant Jews and may have reflected his frustration at the slowness of their assimilation. As noted previously he had nothing but the highest regard for Jacob Schiff, Wise and other Jewish uptown notables.