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 ...
Then you must be the happiest man on FreeRepublic.
What were they? And where, in the secession debates. editorials, declarations and speeches are they given attention in anything like the space devoted to the slavery issue?
From the perspective of the South, losing a major part of their means of production encompassed every facet of life whether you sum it all up in slavery or not.
There's another way to sum it up? What other threat was there to the southern means of production other than the ending of slavery? More importantly, though, what actual steps had been taken to abolish slavery in the south? In every speech, Lincoln says that he has no intention of interfering with slavery in the south.
Yes. Atlanta was the transportation, administrative, and logistical base for the entire southern confederacy. It was the junction of four rail lines and a major maintenance center for what was left of the southern railway system. It contained an arsenal that produced ammunition of all types, a gun factory, and other war-related manufacturing facilities. It was a distribution point for materials manufactured there as well as in Alabama and Mississippi. Since Sherman wasn't going to garrison the city then it was a necessary decision on his part to burn those facilities that supported the war effort in order to keep them out of the hands of the confederacy should they decide to retake the city.
Burning Atlanta wasn't an objective. It was a tactic.
You have to look at it from the state perspective and not the county perspective. Look at the ELECTORAL map... that's the one that counts.
for the 5-6% of slave-owners "preserving the peculiar institution": was VERY important. for the other @95% it was UNimportant, despite the knowing lies of the leftists.
free dixie,sw
That's right, go into a city full of infirmed old people, women left home, many now widows, and young children, deserved to be burned. These people deserved to be put out of their house and home, to be turned into homeless vamps forced to roam the countryside thanks to the wonderful whims of our beloved central government.
Remember, it's the people who were burned out of Atlanta, who watched as union soldiers forced people out of their homes in the dead of the night, stole their money, and basically, looted the city with the intent that all the former citizenry of Atlanta should die. While you cheer the burning of Atlanta, remember, many of the people who were forced out of the city by this act that today would get you brought up in the Hague never forgot it. They then never forgot who cheered the burning of Atlanta after the war. Most of these people, even if they had been affluent before, became reduced to poor white vagabonds, and as such, they became populists. And as we have established earlier, it was the populists who engineered Jim Crow, therefore, it is safe to assume if Atlanta had not been burned, Jim Crow might not have occured in Georgia.
certainly GB did at that time, as King George entertained Utsidishi, the Principle Chief of our nation, as head of state.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
NICE bird!
free dixie,sw
Gee. Then I guess that means tens of thousand of people must have perished due to this act of barbarism. I suppose you have something showing the body count?
While you cheer the burning of Atlanta, remember, many of the people who were forced out of the city by this act that today would get you brought up in the Hague never forgot it.
Hell, people like you have never forgot it. At least how you imagined it to me.
And as we have established earlier, it was the populists who engineered Jim Crow, therefore, it is safe to assume if Atlanta had not been burned, Jim Crow might not have occured in Georgia.
Only if one subscribes you your unusual interpretation of history.
free dixie,sw
And what could the Republican bloc in the senate and house have been able to accomplish against a unified southern opposition? Alexander Stephens, soon to become the CSA VP says as much in his Georgia speech.
He can do nothing, unless he is backed by power in Congress. The House of Representatives is largely in a majority against him. In the very face and teeth of the majority of Electoral votes, which he has obtained in the Northern States, there have been large gains in the House of Representatives, to the Conservative Constitutional Party of the country, which I here will call the National Democratic Party, because that is the cognomen it has at the North. There are twelve of this Party elected from New York, to the next Congress, I believe. In the present House, there are but four, I think. In Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and Indiana, there have been gains. In the present Congress, there were one hundred and thirteen Republicans, when it takes one hundred and seventeen to make a majority. The gains in the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, New York, Indiana, and other States, notwithstanding its distractions, have been enough to make a majority of near thirty, in the next House, against Mr. Lincoln. Even in Boston, Mr. Burlingame, one of the noted leaders of the fanatics of that section, has been defeated, and a Conservative man returned in his stead. Is this the time, then, to apprehend that Mr. Lincoln, with this large majority of the House of Representatives against him, can carry out any of this unconstitutional principles in that body?what 'start date' do you want to use?In the Senate, he will also be powerless. There will be a majority of four against him. This, after the loss of Bigler, Fitch, and others, by the unfortunate dissensions of the National Democratic Party in their States. Mr. Lincoln can not appoint an officer without the consent of the Senate -- he can not form a Cabinet without the same consent. He will be in the condition of George the Third (the embodiment of Toryism), who had to ask the Whigs to appoint his ministers, and was compelled to receive a Cabinet utterly opposed to his views; and so Mr. Lincoln will be compelled to ask of the Senate to choose for him a Cabinet, if the Democracy or that Party choose to put him on such terms. He will be compelled to do this, or let the Government stop, if the National Democratic Senators (for that is their name at the North), the Conservative men in the Senate, should so determine. Then how can Mr. Lincoln obtain a Cabinet which would aid him, or allow him to violate the Constitution? Why, then, I say, should we disrupt the ties of this Union, when his hands are tied-- when he can do nothing against us?link
Any one you choose, right up until the south opens fire on Sumter. What actions had the federal government taken to end slavery in the south?
So I assume that you consider Hiroshima to be a war crime without parallel, right? You have to be consistent here.
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.