Skip to comments.Israeli-American joins Sons of Confederate Veterans
Posted on 02/25/2012 3:44:37 PM PST by smokingfrog
Arieh OSullivan left South Mississippi in 1981 to join the Israeli army. He has made a life as a journalist and olive farmer in that country, but holds tight to his Southern heritage in ways that sometimes perplex his friends, co-workers and even his mother. On Wednesday, he further tightened his connection to the region of his birth by taking the oath of the Sons of Confederate Veterans at Beauvoir.
OSullivan, who holds dual American and Israeli citizenship, is proud of the service given by his great-great-grandfather, Alabama Calvary Lt. George A Johnson. In the oath administered by Wallace Mason of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans, OSullivan pledged to uphold the traditions of faith in God; honor; chivalry and respect for womanhood; a passionate belief in freedom for the individual; and a military tradition of valor, patriotism, devotion to duty and a spirit of self-sacrifice.
OSullivan said there is an unconscious nationalistic soul many Jews carry with them that is similar to the camaraderie shared by Confederate descendants.
I feel it flowing through me, he said. If you have a sense of history that you carry with you, you are enriched by it.
OSullivan is the son of former Ocean Springs Police Chief Efraim OSullivan.
A self-proclaimed Jewish redneck, OSullivan carried a Confederate flag with him into battle with his unit, the Fighting Farmers. He kept the flag, purchased at Gettysburg when he was 12, in the spare grenade pocket of his Israeli army uniform.
He named his jeep the General Lee and attached an image of the Confederate leader to the dashboard. The jeep has a battle flag for a spare tire cover. OSullivan said he gets bizarre looks from people sometimes because of his conspicuous affinity for the Confederacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at sunherald.com ...
they owned them...like anyone else...some had large holdings
some just house staff or mercantile labor
Israelites had slaves too lest we fergit
Slavery beat death after conquer
Shalom to our new compatriot!!!!!
while we are at it...read Grant’s anti Jewish edicts as an occupier...just Google “Ulysses Grant, Jews”
interesting how nice Union army was to Jews in Dixie huh?
in 1816 largest Jewish population in US was in Charleston
3000 Jews fought for CSA
7000 for Union
not near as many Jews then as now in US as he eastern Jews had not arrived yet...a whole nother breed
the old Jewish temples are very interesting architecture...Port Gibson MS has a very nice one
some still exist and have traveling rabbis
see the book Jewish Confederates by Robert Rosen...himself an old line SC Jew..
as to be expected many later arrival liberal Jews and other lefties now try to act like this part of history never happened and often deny it or desribe these as non observant Jews
which is a bald faced lie...the average Jew in those days much like the average Christian too...was far far more religious than their counterpart today
and in the South they were more likely Sephardic..which raises a whole nother inter Jewish issue..one of Eurosnobbery
I don’t know. Being a Texan, and with Texas having much less of a history and tradition with slavery, than say, Massachusetts or Georgia, I would have to do some research. Sam Houston was not a fan though. I suspect Lamar may have been OK with it. If I remember my history correctly, slavery was not legal during the years of the Republic.
(Lamar drove the Indians out, including the John Ross Cherokee who had legal titles to their lands, and was strongly opposed by Sam Houston).
Houston also fought hard against Texas entering into the war. He didn’t seem to think it was a war that Texas should participate in.
Odd, don’t you think? A people held in bondage in ancient Egypt holding other people in bondage in America.
Odd, don’t you think? A people held in bondage in ancient Egypt holding other people in bondage in America.
Interesting though that it didn’t take a war to end slavery in Massachusetts as it did in Georgia.
Yep, there were large Jewish communities in numerous southern cities, and small ones in practically any southern town of note. The smaller communities had the rabbinical equivalent of circuit preachers, same as many rural Baptist churches did. There were cultural and political differences among Jewish groups then as now, though, just as there are in every people. The Sephardi worked and fought alongside us from the earliest days, and earned their place as Americans and Southerners just as we all did. They did not seek to destroy, they sought to uphold and refine. In this regard, they were very unlike the much later Ashkenaz who were radicalized to a great extent before they ever landed on these shores.
A very similar historical tale can be told regarding distinct Catholic populations as well, a Catholic bishop in Charleston ordered th Te Deum to be played in his cathedral, when Ft. Sumter fell. He later served as CSA Ambassador to the Vatican, and was received several times by the pope in that capacity. There were early Catholic settlers in many areas of the south, not just in the Catholic-established Palatinate of Maryland or New Orleans. 70,000 Catholics served the Confederacy.
But, you’d never know it, from the wild misperceptions present, even on FR. The later waves of immigration, already radicalized, were further radicalized on our shores, and were fed a steady diet of disdain and even hatred of all things traditional in this country, and especially everything southern.
That continues to a great extent today, being evident in voting patterns and peculiar historical beliefs that could only be possible among people who had no stake in the matter and no family or cultural history to refute it. But, the fact remains, that the southern States won the revolutionary War, with both Catholic and Jew as compatriots, and the were welcomed into the new Nation and accepted as such. How so many can continue to insist that this is not the case, is a textbook example of the persistence of propaganda.
North or South Jews had a difficult welcome in America and the South, birthplace of the Klan(ex-CSA) had no affinity for the Jews. Or Catholics or blacks or just about anyone else so lets not forget that, ok?
Not sure of your point, re: Texas.
I’m saying it didn’t take a war to end slavery in the North. It did in the South although the prevailing wisdom is The Civil War/War of Northern Aggression/War for Southern Independence wasn’t about slavery.
“But, youd never know it, from the wild misperceptions present, even on FR. The later waves of immigration, already radicalized, were further radicalized on our shores, and were fed a steady diet of disdain and even hatred of all things traditional in this country, and especially everything southern.”
In the years just prior to the Civil War the North received a lot of activists from the failed Revolutions of 1848 that had swept Europe. The Union Army filled its ranks with them and even employed a number as Generals, Carl Schurz being one that comes to mind. These people had an ideology that they brought with them from Europe, one that had no roots in historic America.
Johnny One-Note beating his favorite theme once again.
Well if it ain’t my other favorite Confederate crocus-on-the compost heap! Wassup dawg? One note? That’s rich. Irony isn’t lost on you is it Reb? refute it while you’re at it.
That’s why so many of my ancestors were convinced they were fighting Hessian mercenaries, just as their grandfathers and great grandfathers had. I’ve seen old letters, they felt sorry for those boys, couldn’t spaek a word of English, being used as cannon fodder, marched right into the line of fire and falling like logs, crying for Mutti, some of them still understood German, since it was used in church (Moravian).
So many questions/underlying assumptions/etc. there.
Of course it was about slavery in that slavery was an integral part of the traditional antebellum South, and in order to protect their (idealized*) lifestyle, they had to defend the institution of slavery.
It did take a war at that time to end it, though it was obviously becoming harder and harder to defend and justify, so who knows how long it would have continued without a war? The institution was on its way out one way or the other, IMHO.
It is unfortunate that this is the issue over which the states rights vs. federal power battle was fought, ensuring that states’ rights and state sovereignty became indelibly the “wrong side”.
*Idealized because apparently most southerners did not own slaves (were too poor to do so) and some blacks were slave-owners leaving a big gap between the ideal of genteel southern life and the reality.
Does that address your question adequately?
The institution was on it’s way out? I don’t think so. Kansas was the battle-ground state as to slave vs. free. I know the war was about slavery but in any discussion I’ve ever had about the war with Southerners I’m told it wasn’t about slavery. You’ll notice I used three different titles in referring to it, another aspect of discussing the war. “Northern aggression’’? The South fired the first shots. “Southern independence? Maybe for some but certainly not for the slaves. I’m well aware many Southerners did not own slaves but blacks did? I’ve never been aware of that. As to answering questions? It’s evident to me the Civil War , it’s reasons and causes are still very much unanswered and in some ways the war itself still persists, in the political sense anyway.(btw, my ancestors fought for the Union).
Yes, I knew your ancestors fought for the North. Some of mine fought for the South, some for the North, and most of them just tried to get by.
I’m also going to hazard a guess that you were not raised in the South. If you were, you would know that southerners paid dearly for being on the wrong side of the war for many, many years afterward. We have only recently come into our own economically. That’s why it’s still an issue and a topic of discussion.
All that aside, the only really important question is the one of states’ rights vs. an all-powerful federal government.
Suzy the price paid for starting a war is always steep, especially when that side loses. What do you mean by ‘’we have only recently come into our own economically”” At no other time of prosperity did the South do well? I’m sorry but what you say smacks of a certain separateness and that’s at the heart of what irks me— are we one nation and people or must we still be two or three or whatever?
We have had a very different experience than you have. (I’m guessing you’re NE?) At the risk of speaking for others, we Texans (I won’t even try to speak for Southerners) tend to look much more suspiciously at Washington, be more self-reliant, less authoritarian, and less responsive to authority. It’s a very broad generalization, but it tends to work. Could be that that does make us somewhat “separate”.
“At no other time of prosperity did the South do well?” Sorry, but I’m not sure I get what you’re trying to say here. Would you re-state?