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 ...
Now there’s a story that you don’t hear often.
Who knew that O'Sullivan was a Jewish name?
Like O'Evey I suppose.
What’s so surprising? There were notable Jewish communities in most southern cities, particularly the larger, coastal ports. Judah Benjamin was Jewish.
The stereotype put forth during desegrgation was not grounded in historical fact. It served another purpose.
His GGGF was a preacher and a Lt. too? He was in the Alabama Calvary and Cavalry. The Sun Herald must be hiring affirmative action graduates to proof read their articles.
I heard an actor on TV say “Calvary,” as in call out the Calvary! Boothe said it on an episode of Bones.
Definitely there were Jewish communities in the South long before the large-scale Jewish immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. I ran across a case from before the Civil War in South Carolina, where a Jewish businessman or craftsman got in trouble for working on Sunday, because of laws enforcing the Christian Sabbath, when he observed a different Sabbath. It was a case that went to the appeals court but I forget how it was decided.
“...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...”
Sounds like pretty good traditions.
The stereotype that southerners hate Jewish people. The oldest synagogue in the country is in the south.
This is the type of story that makes me say, with all my heart: God Bless America, that has such people in it!
Just FYI, Kinky Friedman has a sale on Texas Jewboys right now.
I'm sure Paul Greenberg, now of The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in Little Rock, formerly at a paper in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, doesn't fit that stereotype (of Southerners who hate Jews). He was on to Bill Clinton long before anyone else, and coined the nickname "Slick Willie" back in 1980 (during Clinton's unsuccessful re-election campaign after his first two years as governor).
Aw man, how this warms my ever-loving redneck soul. YeeeeeeeeeeHawwwww. At least he is allowed to display the rebel flag. In America it’s become verboten.
Bernard Baruch, the famous mogul who advised Democrat Presidents Wilson and FDR was the son of a Jewish physician who served in the Confederate Army.
After the Civil War, Baruch’s father was one of the leaders who created the Ku Klux Klan, ostensibly to resist Yankee control during Reconstruction.
Bernard Baruch used his fortune to rebuild the family plantation. He employed his father’s former slaves and their descendants. Reportedly, he treated them fairly UNLESS THEY LEFT THE PLANTATION. If they left, he cut off all communication with them.
Baruch was the father of ideas like farm price supports, crop allocation, and social security. After WWII he floated the idea of sharing nuclear secrets with all other nations to create strategic equality.
For a guy who was brilliant at trading metals and creating a fortune, he had some of the silliest, most misguided ideas that have ever come out of the Democrat party.
If he did, he’d be a self-hating southerner just like Bill Clinton and never would have written a negative word about him.
How did southern Jews feel about the slavery thing?
The largest Jewish communities in Antebellum America were in Charleston and New Orleans aside from NYC
Jews actually pursued agrarian aims in the old South...something few had had the right to anywhere else before.
They had same rights as Christians and even had it enumerated in some state constitutions...the first ever for them period except for the occasional Kings waiver....
they were us basically and rarely diverged politically...unlike now.. and you see temples in small towns all over the south now mostly historical sites
the friction did not start till leftist Jewish freedom riders headed South in late 50s and early 60s as agitators and organizers and local Jews were lumped in....without merit mostly...by the Klan
a move that 95% of Christian whites derided
my own church like many defended the temples from aggressive klan action
and so it goes
Jews in the South are more liberal than the goyim (now) but nothing like up north and the old antebellum Jews not hardly at all
it’s a role to emulate...one newer Jews could learn well from
(and that is wardaddys southern Jewish rant..like anything else...it’s better in Dixie..)
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?
I’m born, raised and live in New Jersey. You said ‘’only recently we’ve come into our own economically’’. ‘’Our own’’ is what sounded like ‘’separateness’’ to me. And again, at no other time of prosperity did the South do well?
Your ill-mannered screeds have been regularly refuted.
You’re unable, rather than unwilling, to process it.
It’s an indication of ‘invincible ignorance’ which in some circles at least relieves you of responsibility. Meaning “you cain’t hep it”, unlike some others who are motivated by malevolence.
You might want to consider that this is an area where your knowledge is not as complete as it should be. The South was punished and neglected by the feds for many years after the end of the war. Southerners were considered uneducated and not too bright. In fact, a remnant of that are the last remaining acceptable terms of outright bigotry: “redneck” and “hillbilly”.
I remember reading articles about Carter’s staff and the press was just all agog that they were actually fairly intelligent and informed, in spite of having Southern accents. (I know, I know, Carter, major ick and all that). There’s lots of other examples, but I’ll stick to the main point.
So, “separateness”? Yes, it’s a fact - there is a difference in culture and attitudes. But, that’s OK. You need what we have right now - the pro-business, anti-big-government, self-reliant, git ‘er done kind of thinking that hasn’t been a feature of the NE for a long time. Maybe in a few, idiosyncratic spots. And, of course, as more of y’all move down here to escape bad weather, bad economies, and overcrowding, the distinctness is becoming diluted. Our larger urban areas are becoming indistinguishable from most other large urban areas, both in terms of population and scenery.
You need to come on down and visit. It’s a whole different way of living and thinking. I’ve lived up there - I know whereof I speak.
Ill-mannered? You’re the height of it you dunce. You just can’t process the fact it isn’t 1861 and the South lost a war it started, can you? Do me a favor and shut up. I’m tired of you and I certainly wasn’t talking to you today. In fact I haven’t seen you around here for some time until now.
Do you really think we’re all ‘’big government’’ types up here? Please don’t tell me you would assume that of me. The South launched a war it couldn’t possibly have hoped to win and in the tenor of the times it suffered for it. Doesn’t make it right but that’s the history. What is going to change that 150 years later? I bought up the subject of Kansas (”Bloody Kansas’’) and you didn’t even address it so who’s knowledge is lacking? To make value judgements along cultural lines isn’t the smartest of things to do so again, please don’t assume we’re all liberals up here. I will concede however I was a liberal once and I did vote for Jimmy Carter. I’m aware of the stereo-types of uneducated Southerners and quite honestly it is just that— a vicious stereo-type. Not to be-labor a point but it’s as vicious a stereo-type as to assume all “Yankees’’ are flaming Lefties and liberals, wouldn’t you say? Two of my brothers actually went to a very fine Catholic institution of higher learning in the South,— Belmont Abbey College in Belmont North Carolina. I’ve been there several times, beautiful place in a very beautiful state(’’The “Tar-Heel State’’ is the eighth largest in the nation, did you know that?) I’ve a sister-in-law from NC but I digress. It seems,as I said, the politics of The Civil War still goes on. And btw, New Jersey is one of the “Mid-Atlantic states’’, not a “New England State. :-)
“All that aside, the only really important question is the one of states rights vs. an all-powerful federal government.”
Of course that’s the crux of Lincolnism versus the federated republic of the founding era.
Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and even future President James Monroe opposed ratifying the Constitution because they predicted that it could result in a despotic centralized government. The Articles of Confederation obstructed that sort of power grab and the Anti-Federalists preferred amending the Articles to ratifying the Constitution.
The Federalists of course prevailed, but not before granting an Anti-Federalist demand: the Bill of Rights, an attempt to forestall the centralized power grab that they feared the Constitution would end up enabling. But the Bill of Rights only slowed down the process it couldn’t prevent it. A dedicated President could ignore habeus corpus and other impediments at will.
Of all the Founders the Anti-Federalists would be the least surprised by how powerful and intrusive America’s national government has become. Lincoln’s war on state’s rights was only the first iteration of what was to come.
Wow. I don’t even know where to go with all of that. Paragraphs would have been a nice start.
I said in several ways, that I was generalizing. Generalizing is fine, if done with that knowledge and an awareness of what generalizations mean and how they can be applied.
“To make value judgements along cultural lines isnt the smartest of things to do...” Really? You made the assumption that we think like y’all and I pointed out that perhaps that generalization is incorrect and, culturally, we are different. You assume sameness, I point out difference. Either way, it’s a general assumption about culture.
I’m not sure where the dreaded “L” word came in. I never even addressed liberal vs. conservative. For a lot of reasons. Like that we have leftists, too.
I was explaining why the war is still much more of an issue and of significance here than it might be in, say, NJ. Was that not the original question? Or, do you have something else in mind?
Yeah, I suppose I should learn to space. Suzy, do you not see the um, hazard of ‘’generalizing’’? It can easily take the place of specific facts and logic. It too often paints with a broad brush. I would agree that the war isn’t felt quite the same here in the North as the only battle fought here was in Gettysburg, PA. But irony abounds. I was born and raised in Kearny, NJ, a town named after it’s most famous son, Union General Philip J. Kearny, “Hero of The Wilderness’’. As I said,sans the killing ‘’ The War’’ still goes on. But not between us I pray ‘’Good Woman of Texas’’? Cheers.
Your ancestors likely were encountering the Forty-Eighters who emigrated to the North in large numbers. Thousands of them enlisted in the Union Army and eight became Generals.
Their values still echo in America, the leftism of regions like Milwaukee, Wisconsin hailing back to the progressive politics of the Forty-Eighter radicals.
Even though my own ancestors fought for the Union, I think I can die happy now!