Posted on 02/04/2021 7:39:21 PM PST by dynachrome
Do nt we have the GAY ACTIVIST HARVEY MILK ship??? Omg
“I am glad my father is not here to see this.”
My Dad was a severely injured aka DAV from WW1.
The 1960’s hurt him more than his injuries re the hatred towards our flag, our country and anyone in or out of the military.
The historical record undercuts your claim.
In the 1858 debate with Douglas, Lincoln said: “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”
This was not a one-off comment. On other occasions Lincoln said even worse.
But I do agree Mr. Lincoln should not be taken off our coinage and his memorial in D.C. should not be bulldozed.
Does it now?
In the 1858 debate with Douglas, Lincoln said: “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”
In the first debate in Ottawa Lincoln said, in response to Douglas's constant fear-mongering on equality, the following: "I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."
This was not a one-off comment. On other occasions Lincoln said even worse.
So you would have us believe. But did he speak in favor of slavery as Lee and Jackson and Davis all did? Did any of those men believe that black men had any rights that the white man was bound to recognize?
But I do agree Mr. Lincoln should not be taken off our coinage and his memorial in D.C. should not be bulldozed.
How...moderate of you.
The destroyer USS John S. McCain is named after World War II ADMIRALs John S. McCain, Sr. and John S. McCain, Jr. It was originally NOT named after the senator.
Unfortunately, the senator’s name was added to the list after his death when it was rededicated. Thus we have only to remove the rededication that added John III.
We just need to go with the originally naming of the USS McCain, which was for the senator’s father and grandfather.
from wikipedia:
This warship was originally named after John S. McCain, Sr., and John S. McCain, Jr.,[2] both admirals in the United States Navy. John S. McCain, Sr., commanded the aircraft carrier USS Ranger, and later the Fast Carrier Task Force during the latter stages of World War II. John S. McCain, Jr., commanded the submarines USS Gunnel and USS Dentuda during World War II. He subsequently held a number of posts, rising to commander-in-chief of the United States Pacific Command, before retiring in 1972. These men were, respectively, the grandfather and father of Vietnam War Navy captain and later Senator John S. McCain III.[4]
On 11 July 2018, just 1 1⁄2 months before he died, at a rededication ceremony, Senator John McCain was added as a namesake, along with his father and grandfather.[5]
Yes, there is a non-combat ship named after Milk, but he served in the US Navy as a junior officer during the Korea War. And, I’m guessing, before he discovered he was curved, not straight.
“I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so . . .”
I have never completely understood how Lincoln could support slavery and at the same time argue that he believed slaves had the absolute right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If a person was a legal slave wouldn’t this limit his/her liberty?
Yes...I can understand that sentiment completely.
Being physically injured is one thing, but the psychic pain on top of it being intentionally caused by people who view you as an incapable, intellectually challenged patsy for putting your life on the line in defense of principles they abhor...well...that hurts, as many of our Vietnam Vets know.
Because you can't recognize the difference between reality and support. Reality was that Lincoln could not interfere with slavery where it existed, not as an Illinois legislator, not as a Congressman, not as President. Lincoln knew that. He understood that ending slavery would take an amendment to the Constitution and that wasn't in the cards. Notice that Lincoln said 'where it exists'. He knew that if the U.S. could halt the expansion of slavery then it would eventually die. That if the Republicans could overturn the Scott v. Sanford decision then the federal government could keep slavery bottled up where it was and that would hasten it's inevitable demise. That isn't support, that's realizing the limits on what he could do. The number of Lincoln quotes showing his opposition to slavery are numerous and show what he felt.
If a person was a legal slave wouldn’t this limit his/her liberty?
Depends I guess. If you're someone like Lee or Jackson or Davis and you believe that a slaver was property and not a person then you believed they had no liberty and no rights to begin with. If you're someone like Lincoln you realize that they are entitled to those liberties but the institution of slavery is preventing them from enjoying them. And you work to end it.
Per Wiki, (I know, I know!) “Matthew Fontaine Maury (January 14, 1806 – February 1, 1873) was an American astronomer, naval officer, historian, oceanographer, meteorologist, cartographer, author, geologist, and educator.
He was nicknamed “Pathfinder of the Seas” and “Father of Modern Oceanography and Naval Meteorology” and later, “Scientist of the Seas” for his extensive works in his books, especially The Physical Geography of the Sea (1855), the first such extensive and comprehensive book on oceanography to be published. Maury made many important new contributions to charting winds and ocean currents, including ocean lanes for passing ships at sea.”
So why wouldn’t the Navy name a ship for him?
For the purpose of this post, let's stipulate that you are correct: Lincoln, as early as 1858, was working to end slavery directly, or indirectly.
This is the exactly opposite of what candidate Lincoln was selling to his state and national audiences.
Let's look at his own words: “I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Note well the words “no inclination to do so.”
It is ironic that you take the southern view at the time that candidate Lincoln was an insincere charlatan.
Note well the words "where it exists". Why should Lincoln have the inclination to end slavery in places where he knew he had no power to do so? Why waste time on that? Far better to work on preventing the expansion of slavery using the powers available to the government.
It is ironic that you take the southern view at the time that candidate Lincoln was an insincere charlatan.
It is not surprising that you would somehow stumble to that conclusion in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Congressman Lincoln could have introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to end slavery. He did not.
He felt he had good reasons not to do so: it wasn't in his economic and political best self-interest.
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.