Talk:USCGC Taney/Archive 1

In Honolulu Harbor during the attack on Pearl Harbor
It's interesting to me that Wikipedia duplicates the Taney DANFS article nearly word for word EXCEPT, wikipedia excludes the following sentence, "...the surprise attack reached her simultaneously. As no Japanese attacks were directed at Honolulu harbor, the Coast Guard cutter was only given the opportunity to fire at stray aircraft which happened to venture into her vicinity. She was firing upon unidentified aircraft as late as noon, indicating that the eager Coast Guardsmen were probably shooting at American planes—not Japanese." --Dual Freq (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Taney's AAR backs this up, firing at aircraft after Japanese planes were long gone. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

1961-1965
The article says nothing about what the Taney was doing between 1961 and 1965, but it happens that I was acquainted with it briefly during those years. In the summer of 1963, I sailed to Juneau, Alaska, on the Taney during a reserve training cruise. I recall being in Juneau on August 4 (Coast Guard Day) that year. I was in the USCG Reserve from early 1962 through 1965 and am pretty sure that the Taney was based at Government Island through those years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.217.243 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I read this on the official literature at the museum itself. I will search my library to see if I can find a peer reviewed source Jtlloyd (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

1972 - 1986
An interesting note: Commissioned on October 24, 1936, she had a long and distinguished career being decommissioned on December 7, 1986, the last active ship that was at Pearl Harbor during the Japanese attack. Also, because of her long career, It is my understanding that she is now the last ship afloat that was present at the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Designated a National Historic Landmark in 1988 Not really sure where in the article this information should go. Art Rice 14:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtR001 (talk • contribs)
 * Looks like someone beat me to this part 170.12.232.243 (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Art Rice 04:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Last Ship from Pearl Harbor Afloat
The statement, "notable as the last ship floating that fought in the attack on Pearl Harbor", at the beginning of this article has been bothering me for some time now because it is either not true or disingenuous - depending on how you look at it. I would change it myself, but I feel like there is for some reason a matter of debate on this subject. Here's the issue: the USS Hoga (YT-146), although in bad shape, is still afloat and was also involved in the Pearl Harbor attack. The reason that the aforementioned statement may not be entirely false is if you contend that the Hoga didn't "fight" seeing as I don't think it fired back at the attackers. However, I find the latter argument to be splitting hairs. If the ship was involved I don't think it really matters what it was exactly doing. In some ways the Hoga did more than the Taney seeing as it was in the actual harbor and the Taney was not. I think it more appropriate to say something like "notable as one of only two ships involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor still afloat". Again, the reason I bring it up here instead of changing it myself is because I feel the statement would have already been changed if there was nothing in contention. I also thought that the phrase "the last ship floating" was a strange addition until I just recently realized and then assumed it was meant to remove the USS Arizona (BB-39) and USS Utah (BB-31) from the equation. Although I do find it odd that it says "last ship floating" instead of "last ship afloat". -Noha307 (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Slavery
Mr Taney was central to the fight to maintain slavery in the United States, and brought down a major judicial decision that effectively expanded slavery back into states that had already banned the practice. If we are to list the positions he held, then we must also mention this as it is much more important historically - no-one remembers him for the jobs he held, but because of the decisions he brought down, regardless as to whether it makes someone uncomfortable, or they don't regard that as relevant to themselves. It is relevant to the nation's history, and there was no doubt some discussion about it when the ship was named as he was the only supreme court justice ever to have a statue voted down, due entirely to his vile decisions. Why the US Coast Guard would even consider naming a ship after him is incomprehensible, nonetheless what was done, was done. FWIW I have the model of the ship, and would never have built it as the Taney had I known who HE was. Sigh.NiD.29 (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The Coast Guard named the ship for Taney because he was the 12th Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. Taney was one of seven Secretary-class cutters (sometimes referred to as the Treasury-class) built in the mid-1930's that were named for former Secretaries of the Treasury. At the time they were built, the Coast Guard was a part of the Department of the Treasury. One of the forerunner agencies that made up the formation of the Coast Guard in 1915 was the United States Revenue Cutter Service and they also named a cutter after Taney; USRC Taney (1833). The reason Taney was named after Roger B. Taney was because of his service as a Secretary of the Treasury, not as a Supreme Court Justice. While Taney's decisions as a Supreme Court Justice were important to the history of the United States, they had no bearing on the history of Taney, which is what the article USCGC Taney (WHEC-37) is about. I do not condone slavery, and neither does the Coast Guard; however, I would point out that the attitudes about race relations have changed since the ship was commissioned. I seriously doubt a new cutter being commissioned today would be named for anyone holding Taney's views on race. In fact, one of the Coast Guard's newer cutters is USCGC Healy (WAGB-20), named after Michael A. Healy, a Revenue Cutter Service captain who was of mixed race and passed for Caucasian because he wouldn't have been an RCS officer if his background were known. (I take pride in bringing the Michael A. Healy article to B class and am responsible for the extensive referencing on that article. I did it because of my love for the Coast Guard and Wikipedia, not to make any statement as to race.) As I implied before, anything that has to do with Taney's Supreme Court decisions belong in the Roger B. Taney article. The decisions that Taney made as a Supreme Court Justice had no bearing on why the cutter was named after him; rather, it was because he had served as a Secretary of the Treasury.
 * Our first President, George Washington, owned slaves...should his portrait be taken off the one dollar bill for that reason? Or perhaps a notation that he was a slaveowner should be put on each bill? Why would we honor a man that owned slaves? The answer, of course is that attitudes change...
 * Your edit does not serve any function, except to promote a certain Point of View and I would ask you to reconsider your edit. It may be a factual statement; however, it does not belong in the article about the ship. The statement dishonors the service of thousands of Coast Guardsmen that have served on Taney during her career and adds nothing to the understanding of the construction or history of the ship.
 * As a side note, If you regret having a model of Taney, the you could paint the hull number for USCGC Campbell (WPG-32) on the model. They are both Secretary-class cutters and Campbell was the closest in the class to being identical to Taney. Just a suggestion, and I sincerely hope that you will reconsider your edit. I will not revert your edit as I don't believe in edit warring. I do believe in discussing issues and compromise. Cheers... Cuprum17 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "It is relevant to the nation's history" but not obviously in a way that is relevant to this ship ("There was no doubt" is ) unless the ship was involved with slavery in some way. Your identifying him with "his vile decisions" and that this naming "is incomprehensible" very valid opinions, but we're not allowed as editors to consider that. Instead, WP:V policy requires that there be some published source that asserts the relevance. It would be great if you could find a reference that actually does make the point, and that there was a public outcry or criticism of the naming. DMacks (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, beware of WP:EW when others disagree with you. DMacks (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Opinions of such are only on the talk page, I only said on the actual page his position as a judge which is well recorded. No matter - it is here in the talk page anyway and one revert is hardly an edit war.
 * His rulings are at least as important historically, if not more so, than the list of jobs he held, whose inclusion isn't contested in any way. He isn't remembered for the jobs, but for his rulings.
 * I have no idea if there ever was any public controversy over the naming at the time - as a long dead politician/judge, his name probably wasn't well known other than by historians interested in the emancipation, and the African-American community, even had it known, lacked enough of a public voice to force a change, while the naming itself wouldn't have been particularly newsworthy, there being a lot of other ships being built at the same time. What is relevant though is that they named the ship after someone whose own history was so controversial, and with today's sensibilities he would have been unlikely to have had a ship named for him.NiD.29 (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the name brings any dishonour to the valiant crew who served aboard her (they had nothing to do with the choice of name), however sweeping this under the rug does bring a certain stain upon Wikipedia. As for the dollar bill - Washington owned slaves when it was common and acceptable, and wasn't on the forefront of the fight against emancipation. I think it should be mentioned that it was named specifically for his position as Secretary of the Treasury. Already decided to leave the model as it is.NiD.29 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)