I wrote this paper for a class entitled "Antisemitism in Historical Perspective" in December, 1999, at the State University of New York at Albany.

In The Temple Bombing, Melissa Fay Greene tells the story of the bombing of the Reform synagogue known as the Temple in Atlanta, Georgia, on October 12, 1958. Through this story, she reveals that the nature of mainstream antisemitism in the southern United States evolved between 1913 and 1958 from overt to covert hatred. Greene suggests that the display of southern antisemitism is virtually nonexistent when Jews attempt to blend in, but remains as an unacknowledged yet accepted prejudice. However, when circumstances conspire to make Jews conspicuous, or Jews behave in a manner that draws attention to themselves, this hatred surfaces, often violently.

The members of the Temple, formally the Hebrew Benevolent Congregation, were Reform Jews. Their ancestors had immigrated to the United States from Germany, where the Enlightenment had fostered the development of this new movement away from traditional religious observance. The basic tenets of the Reform Movement as practiced in the United States were affirmed by the Pittsburgh Platform in 1885. The Pittsburgh Platform proclaimed that observance of religious rituals and ceremonies was anachronistic. Only laws regulating moral behavior were to be considered binding upon believers in Classical Reform ideology (Greene p. 59). In large part due to these ideas, the Temple Jews believed that the best way for them to be integrated into Atlanta society was through unobtrusive acculturation. They therefore did not publicly call attention to their Jewishness. They practiced endogamy and placed a premium on charitable works and communal service. In short, Temple Jews sought to fit in with Atlanta society by being as similar as the Gentiles as they could without giving up their religious moral values.

The Temple Jews, however, were ambivalent about their Jewish identity. When their new rabbi, Jacob Rothschild, argued that "Judaism ought to be somehow more to them than a religion, that Jews were a `people,’" they vehemently opposed his position. One congregant even wrote, "We shall continue to shout from the housetops, `THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A JEWISH PEOPLE. WE ARE AMERICANS OF THE JEWISH FAITH’" (Greene p. 105). As such, the Temple Jews sought to distance themselves from their Orthodox and Conservative counterparts in Atlanta, who "wore yarmulkes and prayer shawls, muttered and swayed and sang out and shut their eyes in vigorous prayer…" (Greene p. 66) – people who were easily identified as Jews.

Furthermore, the Temple itself was built in a manner that did little to indicate its religious nature. Built in the neoclassical style, it looked more like a government building than a synagogue. Only the small representation of the tablets of the covenant over the front entrance indicated the Jewish nature of the structure. Indeed, there even appears to be a cross-like pattern on the dome. This design was likely intended to depict the Temple Jews as good Americans and cause them to blend into society rather than stand out (class notes).

The Temple Jews did, however, have tangible evidence suggesting that it was better for them to be invisible as Jews. On April 27, 1913, Mary Phagan, a fourteen-year-old girl who worked in the National Pencil Factory, was found murdered by a night watchman. Police determined that Leo Frank, a Temple member and a Jewish engineer from New York who served as superintendent of the factory and was a part-owner, had been the last person to see Phagan alive (Greene p. 68). Phagan’s family blamed "Yankees, capitalists, and Jews" (Greene p. 69). This belief was fed in part by post-Civil War residual Southern hostility against the North and the stereotype that Jewish money bolstered Northern power and industry (Greene p. 41). Frank fit all three categories. He was soon arrested and charged with murder, despite evidence suggesting the guilt of the primary witness against him. Public opinion was overwhelmingly against Frank as newspaper editorials and politicians condemned Jews (Greene pp. 70-71).

Despite little evidence proving his guilt, Frank was convicted and sentenced to death. Governor John Slaton, convinced of Frank’s innocence, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment. The people of Atlanta were outraged. On August 16, 1915, an angry mob stormed the correctional facility at which Frank was held and lynched him. As the people of Atlanta celebrated, the Temple Jews realized that they were not as accepted by society as they had previously thought. Antisemitism in America was still fundamentally based on religious differences. No matter how successfully the Temple Jews had managed to acculturate, wealthy Protestants in Atlanta would do nothing to prevent antisemitic violence (Greene p. 75). In so doing, they implicitly condoned it.

These events were remembered when Rabbi Rothschild preached in favor of civil rights for the black population of the South. Rothschild claimed that as Reform Jews with a duty to promote morality, the Temple Jews had to take an active role in black integration. It was not enough for Jews to be accepted by society; Jews had to pave the way for other minority groups to be granted the civil rights they deserved and were constitutionally guaranteed. By advocating integration of blacks, Jews would be promoting justice and so would bring about a greater degree of acceptance for themselves in society (Greene pp. 434-435). However, when the Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation in public schools in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas decision, the white people of the South were collectively enraged. Their superior legal status over blacks, which they had viewed as "inherently right" (Greene p. 149) had been struck down. Violence against blacks resulted. White Citizens Councils sprung up around the South, and membership in the Ku Klux Klan surged. These organizations were not only anti-black, they were also antisemitic. They associated the Brown decision with northern Jewish capitalist interests and participated in the bombings of several southern synagogues, temples, and educational buildings in response (Greene p. 153). As such, they perceived the Jews as attempting to eliminate the privileged legal status of whites compared to blacks. The Temple Jews were therefore justifiably wary of involving themselves in the civil rights movement.

Clearly, these racist organizations believed that the Jews were in some way involved or responsible for the black civil rights movement. The Temple itself, however, and, by extension, its members, were not attacked until Rothschild had become a prominent and outspoken advocate for black civil rights. One of the men later charged with bombing the Temple (and later said to be guilty by one of the defense attorneys at the first trial [Greene p. 363]), George Bright, called Rothschild "the most outspoken Jew in Atlanta…in favor of integration" who "had a hold on the city" (Greene p. 201). Bright was annoyed that Rothschild preached in churches and in favor of integration, and claimed that he did so for selfish personal gain (Greene p. 279). Greene suggests that we may never know for certain who bombed the Temple, but the evidence she presents as outlined above indicates that Bright was likely one of the conspirators. He was acquitted of all charges for bombing the Temple in his second trial, the first trial ending with a hung jury. The second jury concluded that the prosecutor "did not present sufficient evidence for us to feel in any way that we could convict Bright" for the bombing (Greene p. 369). This conclusion was reached despite Bright’s alibi having been provided by a lunatic (Greene p. 363) telling an obvious lie (Greene p. 369). Furthermore, there was a great deal of evidence implicating Bright. Witnesses established his rhetoric promising violence against Jews (Greene p. 313) and his admission to having participated in the bombing (Greene p. 314). Bright had taunted Rabbi Rothschild during a speech at a church several months earlier (Greene p. 309) and had written a threatening note to Rothschild (Greene p. 312). His acquittal by a jury of white men despite these factors indicated white society’s willingness to ignore antisemitic violence. That the redundant antisemitic rhetoric of Bright’s defense attorneys, first James Venable, then Reuben Garland, was tolerated in the trials further demonstrates this. Finally, that Garland’s ridiculous tactics were not punished or stopped until after Bright’s acquittal provides additional evidence of this mindful blindness.

It is important to note, however, that the bombing did not occur until Rothschild had been preaching in favor of integration for a long time. As long as Jews blended into society, they were left alone. Racist organizations were content to ignore Jews until they got involved in the black civil rights movement. While the rhetoric of these organizations indicates adherence to old stereotypes, they did not act upon their hatred until the Jews actively participated in a campaign to aid blacks, a group these racists hated even more than Jews. This suggests that Southern antisemitism had evolved such that it was now linked to general racism or, more specifically, anti-black racism.

In conclusion, it is evident from Greene’s presentation that southern antisemitism evolved between the Leo Frank case and the Temple bombing. In Frank’s case, Jews faced antisemitism based solely on old anti-Jewish stereotypes of wealth and deviance. As the Temple Jews became more acculturated into Atlanta society, they became virtually indistinguishable from white Protestants. As such, they faced little overt antisemitism. The old prejudices persisted covertly, but antisemitic behavior was uncommon until the Jews were linked to what was perceived as an attempt to eliminate the special privileged status of southern whites compared to blacks. Once such an association was perceived, antisemitic violence resulted. Finally, despite having indicted the likely bombers and tried one with convincing evidence of guilt, the covert prejudice of white Protestant Atlanta caused the jury to refuse to punish the offender. If we assume that the attitudes of southern whites are a good barometer for the attitudes of all Americans toward Jews, as some scholars do, it can be inferred that all of American society follows a similar overt-to-covert pattern.

I find Greene’s reasoning somewhat convoluted. She suggests that mainstream antisemitism shifted from an overt mode to a covert mode, but also clearly illustrates that extremists continued overt violence against Jews. I believe this is an example of history repeating itself. For example, during the Enlightenment in Europe, mainstream society favored granting some civil rights to Jews, but hard-liners preferred to defend the ancien regime. Similarly, the white establishment in Atlanta publicly supported integration and supported the Temple Jews when the Temple was bombed, but had to be pressured into attending a dinner honoring Martin Luther King, Junior’s receipt of the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize (Greene pp. 416-417). Additionally, the white establishment failed to do everything possible to convict the likely Temple bombers, as discussed above. It seems that Greene framed her thesis in such a way as to tell a morality tale rather than comment on the nature of southern antisemitism. Her argument is similar to that of Rabbi Rothschild: that by fully embracing the tenets of Judaism, one promotes civil rights. Jews therefore stood in the forefront of the civil rights movement because they historically had faced similar overt discrimination (class notes). While commitment to social justice is certainly deeply rooted in Judaism, there are unquestionably many non-observant individuals who are devoted to social justice. Similarly, there are undoubtedly many observant individuals who are not so devoted. As Frederic Cople Jaher indicates in his book, A Scapegoat in the New Wilderness, during the Civil War, Jews tended to favor either the Union or the Confederacy based on where they lived (Jaher p. 181). It seems reasonable to assume that neither side had a monopoly on observant Jews. Those Jews who favored the Confederacy and were against emancipation of blacks and granting civil rights clearly did not promote social justice. Thus, Greene’s argument is flawed. It would have been more convincing had she concentrated on the evolution of social mores rather than her fanciful morality tale.