Posted on 06/14/2006 5:58:12 PM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
Confederate flags flown aboard the international space station — and seemingly signed by a NASA astronaut — showed up last week on the online auction site eBay.
The original eBay listing indicated that the 4-by-6-inch flags were brought aboard the space station by Russian cosmonaut Salizhan Sharipov in 2004, and an accompanying photo showed a sample flag that seemed to bear Sharipov’s signature as well as that of Leroy Chiao, his NASA colleague on the station. Yet another photo showed several of the rebel flags floating in a space station module.
The item was pulled from the auction on Monday by the seller, Alex Panchenko of USSR-Russian Air-Space Collectibles Inc. in Los Angeles — and on Tuesday, Panchenko told MSNBC.com that he removed the items from sale because he had concluded the flag and the authentication documents were forgeries.
However, Robert Pearlman, editor and founder of CollectSpace, said he believes the flags are authentic.
“The picture taken of the flags aboard the station says a lot,” he said. “It would be difficult to fake, given the style and I couldn't see the motivation to do so.” The “onboard-the-ISS” stamp, added Pearlman, is not known to have been counterfeited anywhere."
The disappearance of the flags followed a round of criticism over the weekend from former space scientist Keith Cowing, publisher of NASA Watch, an independent Web log. He cited the Confederate flags as an example of “bad judgment on the ISS.”
“You'd think that someone on the U.S. side of the ISS program would have expressed some concern about flying a symbol on the ISS that many Americans associate with slavery,” Cowing wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Wrong again.
Indeed, it was a joint effort of Preston and Jackson that got a famous black Sunday school class underway. Whites had taught the tenets of Christianity to slaves and freedmen as early as 1843, when Colonel Smith organized a Sunday school for slaves in Lexington. Two years later, St. John's Episcopal Church in Redmond began such a Sunday school. Lexington Presbyterians undertook a similar project at the same time. Local opposition and lack of participation doomed all three of these initial experiments.The Lexington school was started in 1845 by Dr. Ruffner and Rev. Lacy, which quickly failed along with the other two.
James I. Robertson, Jr., Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend, New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1997, p. 167
A decade later Jackson and Preston started their own school.
'He [Jackson] next proposed to gather the African slaves of the village in the afternoon of the Sabbath, and speedily he had a flourishing school of eighty or a hundred pupils, with twelve teachers; the latter of whom were recruited from among the educated ladies and gentlemen of the place. This he continued to teach successfully from 1855 until the spring of 1861; when he reluctantly left it to enter the army. And to the end of his life, he inquired of every visitor at the camp from his church at home. How his black Sabbath-school was progressing.'This time, under Jackson, blacks were begging to be admitted:
Robert L. Dabney, Life and Campaigns of Lieut. Gen. Thomas J. Jackson, (Stonewall Jackson), New York: Blelock & Co., 1866, p. 92
While thus exacting in his discipline of the school, he was rendered extremely popular among all the more serious servants by these labors for their good. He was indeed the black man's friend. His prayers were so attractive to them, that a number of them living in his quarter of the town, petitioned to be admitted on Sabbath nights.VMI Cadet Samuel B. Hannah wrote of Jackson, 'the Gen. took quite an active part in the church and was the founder of the Colored Sunday School and the main stay of it as long as he was in Lexington.'
Ibid, p. 94
Jackson did not contunue an existing school, he started one, and kept it flourishing.
The war could have also been avoided if the Lincoln regime had not sent in troops, and simply abided by the existing amistice.
what "cobra" posts is TYPICAL of the nonsense & arrogantly ignorant, REVISIONIST, foolishness out of the DAMNyankee/Revisionist "coven of lunatics, haters, bigots & 1/2-wits".
OR could it be that he is just a TROLL, who enjoys posting that are intended ONLY to cause "controversy" & "discord" on the forum???
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Leave it to a Russian to market something so collectible and so un-PC to an American market. I love it !
a.NONE of the so-called "declarations" were EVER officially recognized state documents.
b.few were read by anyone but the authors of those documents.
c.the documents spoke for the opinions of NOBODY but the private persons who wrote them.
d. if the authors had written "Mary Had a Little Lamb", they would have had exactly the same effect on public policy for the vast majority of southerners. (fwiw, the so-called "declarations" are generally IGNORED as irrelevant by most scholars.)
free dixie.sw
consider yourself among the "ridiculed, ignorant few".
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Nonsense. The various Native American nations (held to be such by the US Supreme Court) signed some 29 treaties with the Confederacy. Lincoln's blockade of Southern ports was official recognition of the CSA as a belligerent power under International law, a fact noted by Thaddeus Stevens 9 Dec 1862:
'We, ourselves, by what I consider a most unfortunate act, not well considered -- declared a blockade of their [the Confederate States] ports -- have acknowledged them as a power. We can not blockade our own ports. It is an absurdity. We blockade an enemy's ports. The very fact of declaring this blockade, recognized them a beligerent power entitled to all the privileges and subject to the rules of war, according to the law of nations.'
> you can read the old papers to see what items were of interest to the people of the time.
Tariffs may have been of interest at the time. Tariffs may well ahve even been a secession-worthy topic at the time. But your problem is twofold:
1) Those who secceded chose SLAVERY as the cause, and enshrined that cause within their declarations and constitutions.
2) They then proceeded to launch a war of aggression against their neighbors by attacking Fort Sumter and seizing other Union military facilities.
These are undeniable facts. Had the South secceded peacefully and engraved *tariffs* and such as the cause within thier declaratiosn and constitutions, then they woudl be remembered as honorable. But that's not the road they chose.
> If you can't...stick to the comics.
You do not aid your cause by claiming that your sides consitutions were "comics."
> consider yourself among the "ridiculed, ignorant few".
To be ridiculed by someone whose notions of rhetoric peak with "caps lock" really does not hurt my feelings much.
at any rate,you may now consider yourself "a target of opportunity" for those of us southerners & those "on the right".
we will feel free to ridicule you & point out that your posts are frequently:ignorant, arrogant, fact-free & clueless, as long as you continue to post south-hating fiction out of the "most extreme, revisionist, lunatic fringe of northeastern academia".
free dixie,sw
> the Civil War Era was an interesting time.
No doubt.
> The parallels between what happened then and what is happening now will benefit you one day.
Really? Do we have major public figures arguing that our fellows should be cast into bondage for life and whipped just because of their race? Who are these fools?
OK, let's look at 294 for a moment. A series of editorials and quotes that seem to make two claims. One, the south paid the lions share of tariffs - three quarters of the total if Adams is to be believed. And two, the imports were totally dependent on southern exports. Without exports our import market would dry up. Can we agree on this?
If the claims of Adams et. al. are true then how do you explain the following? In the year prior to the rebellion tariff income totalled about $53 million dollars. If Adams is to be believed only about $13 million of that came from Northern consumers. In December 1864 Lincoln delivered his annual message to Congress. In it he stated the total tariff revenue for the fiscal year ending June 1864 came to $102.3 million dollars. Receipts multiplied to almost twice of what they were 4 years earlier, and almost 8 times over what Adams said the Northern share was in 1860. This was without southern consumers importing goods and without southern exports fueling the economy and in the middle of a war. So how do you account for that? What could account for such a massive increase? Inflation? Depending on who you read, the price index in the North increase between 75% and 125% during the entire war, so that can't be the cause. War materials being imported? What country in it's right mind would tax itself on the goods it needs to fight a war? The Morill Tariff? True the tariff rates did go up by a considerable percentage, but any economist will tell you that the purpose of a protective tariff is to discourage imports, not encourage them. So by rights the Morill Tariff should have driven revenues down as people turned away from the suddenly more expensive imported goods in favor of the less expensive domestic goods. And even so, a 40-odd percent increase in tariff should not generate an 8-fold increase in revenue, should it? It may bump up the total by the same percentage of the increase at best. And would more likely decrease it. No, factor in the inflation and the increase in tariff and the only possible way to explain the increase in tariff revenue between 1860 and 1864 is if it was the North that was generating the overwhelming majority of tariff revenue all along. That the North was the massive consumer of imports. And that Adams and DiLorenzo and that ilk are incorrect when they claim the south paid a disproportionate amount of the tariffs prior to the rebellion. What alternative explanation can you offer?
> i write to suit me & nobody else
That's obvious. You certainly don't write to convince others.
> you may now consider yourself "a target of opportunity"
I'm truly honored.
> as long as you continue to post south-hating fiction
Nothing fictional or "south-hating" (unless, of course, to you "the South" and "slavery" are one and the same thing) has been posted.
fwiw, it was ONLY about LIBERTY & freedom from a faraway central government that southerners believed (rightly!) was likely to become evermore intrusive into their lives.
face it, "blam", you've been lied to & made a fool of. (you really should go do some serious reading of the period documents.)
free dixie,sw
actually, making fun of & ridiculing the arrogantly, close-minded, propagandized "useful idiots", who have swallowed the revisionist/DIMocRAT party line, is one of my "guilty pleasures".
stop posting arrogant, leftist fiction & i'll stop "making sport of" you.
btw, my "writing style" primarily irritates self-important twits. are you a twit???
free dixie,sw
Complete nonsense. You admit that the school had been started in 1845 by Dr. Ruffner and Rev. Lacey and then insist that Jackson founded it? You claim it quickly failed but as Byron Farwell documents in "Stonewall: A Biography of General Thomas J. Jackson" the school was a success with as many as 100 students at a time participating, and the success continued until Dr. Ruffner and Rev. Lacey left Lexington. The school did go into hiatus until restarted with Jackson as the teacher The only difference between the schools seems to be that Dr. Ruffner was anti-slavery and Thomas Jackson was not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.