Fathers and our God cannot be the God of our children.” Nor was he at-
tracted to territorial autonomy outside Palestine even though several of his
close friends—Oscar Straus, Mayer Sulzberger, Cyrus Sulzberger—sup-
ported Zangwill and launched an American branch of ITO in 1906. Schiff
shared their concern for something more “practical” than Zionism, and he
too favored outlets for emigrants other than the Western Hemisphere, but
he thought that territorialism, like Zionism, was merely a very expensive
dream, “an utopia... which I fear will only block the way of something
practical.” Schiff could not be bothered by theoretical propositions or
“isms” while the Russian problem “is becoming daily more burning.” As a
Reform Jew he also believed that the dispersion of the Jews was a salutary
condition, that “the Jew must maintain his own identity—not apart in any
autonomous body but among the nations where alone he can fulfill the mis-
sion, which is assigned to him, to promote the unity of God and the broth-
erhood of man among the people of the earth.” In particular, Schiff op-
posed the goal of autonomy, “an altogether unnecessary stumbling-block”
that would give rise to anti-Jewish prejudice and perhaps even foment
Russian-like conditions for Jews in other lands. Yours is a “terrible
scheme,” he bluntly told Zangwill; Zionism at least had the justification of
a past.^23 Fearful of ITO’s attractiveness to men of substance and of the
harm it might cause other emigration projects, Schiff used Galveston to
co-opt Zangwill’s organization and divert its attention to settlement in
America. Along with his aim of countering immigration restrictionism, the
hope of undermining Jewish nationalism, whether in the guise of Zionism
or of territorialism, helps explain Schiff’s focus on Galveston in 1906, a
year after the birth of ITO.
Zangwill did not abandon ITO, but with mixed feelings he agreed to
cooperate with Schiff. He believed that the dream of America “does more
to counteract the efforts of the Jewish Territorial Organization than any
other country” (in his words the country was “the euthanasia of the Jew
and Judaism”) but it still offered a better haven than other lands. He also
understood the economic appeal of Galveston to Schiff; it was compara-
tively cheap, whereas mass settlement of immigrants in eastern cities
“would reduce even Mr. Schiff to the poorhouse.” Furthermore, ITO’s ex-
clusive management of the Galveston movement in Europe (as opposed to
cooperation between ITO and the Jewish Colonization Association [ICA],
which Schiff preferred but which both organizations rejected) stood to
popularize Zangwill’s movement and prevent its eclipse by other agencies.
Participation in Galveston might even train ITO’s leaders in lessons of em-
igration that could be applied another time on behalf of an ITO-sponsored
land. Finally, no one turned down Schiff lightly, especially since coopera-
tion might conceivably enhance one’s influence with the banker. The po-
tential for friction between the two remained high—as Schiff put it, both
In Search of a Refuge 163