# Why no WWII carrier USS Trenton? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 15, 2011, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097 "2011-07-15T03:41:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/1 "2011-07-15T03:41:15Z")
There’ve been three warships of the name in the U.S. Navy, none of which has been particularly well-known: [USS Trenton - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Trenton) Washington’s daring victory over the Hessian garrison at Trenton, N.J. on the day after Christmas, 1776, kept the American Revolutionary cause alive when virtually all hope seemed lost. It was, most historians agree, one of the most important battles of the war. Just about every other major battle in the American Revolution was memorialized by naming an aircraft carrier after it before or during World War II. The USS _Yorktown, Saratoga_ and _Lexington_ immediately spring to mind. Maybe a rung or two down the ladder of fame, there were the _Cowpens, Valley Forge, Ticonderoga, Bunker Hill, Princeton_ and _Oriskany_; the carriers _Ranger, Wasp, Hornet, Bon Homme Richard_ and _Enterprise_ were all named after Revolutionary War-era warships. But there was no carrier named _Trenton_. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/2 "2011-07-15T03:56:56Z")
Ah, but there was. Sort of. The civilian oiler [SS Esso Trenton](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sangamon_(CVE-26)) was commandeered by the Navy in 1940, renamed Sangamon, and retrofitted to serve as an aircraft carrier in 1942. Seriously, though, maybe because Trenton just wasn’t a very big battle. Only 4,000 combatants, versus nearly 40,000 at Yorktown and over 15,000 at both Battles of Saratoga. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/3 "2011-07-15T04:02:53Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > There’ve been three warships of the name in the U.S. Navy, none of which has been particularly well-known: [USS Trenton - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Trenton) > > Washington’s daring victory over the Hessian garrison at Trenton, N.J. on the day after Christmas, 1776, kept the American Revolutionary cause alive when virtually all hope seemed lost. It was, most historians agree, one of the most important battles of the war. > > Just about every other major battle in the American Revolution was memorialized by naming an aircraft carrier after it before or during World War II. The USS _Yorktown, Saratoga_ and _Lexington_ immediately spring to mind. Maybe a rung or two down the ladder of fame, there were the _Cowpens, Valley Forge, Ticonderoga, Bunker Hill, Princeton_ and _Oriskany_; the carriers _Ranger, Wasp, Hornet, Bon Homme Richard_ and _Enterprise_ were all named after Revolutionary War-era warships. > > But there was no carrier named _Trenton_. Why? During World War II when large numbers of aircraft carriers were named, Trenton was already taken for the cruiser under the tradition of naming cruisers after cities. After the war, three traditions have been followed to name Aircraft Carriers–after a famous carrier already decommisioned, all of which were WWII era carriers, Or after Admirals, and finally the tradition we use now, after Presidents. Becuase Trenton was unavailable in any of those three traditions either, the name unfortunately slipped through the cracks. You’re right though, it would be great to memorialize Trenton by naming a carrier after the battle. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/4 "2011-07-15T13:13:33Z")
You’d think they might rename the light cruiser (which was named after the city, not the battle, according to Wiki) to free up the name for a carrier. A similar thing happened when the old Great White Fleet battleship _Kearsarge_ was renamed _Crane Ship No. 1_ in order for her original time-honored name to be given to an _Essex_-class carrier: [USS Kearsarge (BB-5) - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kearsarge_(BB-5)) Obviously, and unfortunately, _Carl Vinson_ and _John C. Stennis_ don’t fit the current carrier naming convention. Historic battle names, including many borne by WWII-era carriers, are these days given to _Ticonderoga_-class Aegis cruisers. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/5 "2011-07-15T13:28:21Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > You’d think they might rename the light cruiser (which was named after the city, not the battle, according to Wiki) to free up the name for a carrier. A similar thing happened when the old Great White Fleet battleship _Kearsarge_ was renamed _Crane Ship No. 1_ in order for her original time-honored name to be given to an _Essex_-class carrier: [USS Kearsarge (BB-5) - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kearsarge_(BB-5)) > > Obviously, and unfortunately, _Carl Vinson_ and _John C. Stennis_ don’t fit the current carrier naming convention. Historic battle names, including many borne by WWII-era carriers, are these days given to _Ticonderoga_-class Aegis cruisers. Ah, I should have said Presidents and other respected government officials. I had made the mistake of thinking Stennis an admiral, though. Whether you look at it as 4 or 3 different naming traditions, Trenton still doesn’t fall under any of them. Wasn’t Kearsarge decommissioned as a battleship before they did that? I just don’t know, and there probably is no record, why they didn’t rename the cruiser and take the name for a carrier. I doubt it can be answered. But perhaps we can write the secretary of defense and get the ball rolling for an exception in current tradition. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/6 "2011-07-15T14:07:01Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Just about every other major battle in the American Revolution was memorialized by naming an aircraft carrier after it before or during World War II. The USS _Yorktown, Saratoga_ and _Lexington_ immediately spring to mind. Maybe a rung or two down the ladder of fame, there were the _Cowpens, Valley Forge, Ticonderoga, Bunker Hill, Princeton_ and _Oriskany_; the carriers _Ranger, Wasp, Hornet, Bon Homme Richard_ and _Enterprise_ were all named after Revolutionary War-era warships. > > But there was no carrier named _Trenton_. Why? Well, how many carriers are named for battles in other wars? There were a couple of late WWII carriers named after earlier WWII battles, like _Coral Sea_ and _Midway_. But generally there were more Civil War battles and WWII battles than Revolutionary battles, and they don’t seem as well represented by carrier names…not sure I can even think of a carrier named after a Civil War battle. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/7 "2011-07-15T14:17:05Z")
Regarding the current naming traditions for American naval vessels: Personally, I think it’s a shame we don’t follow the British tradition of naming ships after aspirational traits or traits of martial valor. You know, _scary_ names. _Dreadnought_, _Warrior_, _Warspite_, _Dauntless_ - I could go on. The Brits have often been very, very good at giving their ships scary names. Names that say, “You don’t want to be on the wrong end of this thing. You really don’t. We promise.” _John C. Stennis_ doesn’t really inspire that same level of fear. Of course, I’m not sure it matters all that much once warplanes launched from the _Stennis_ have finished pounding your military into rubble. But still. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/8 "2011-07-15T14:24:42Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > Regarding the current naming traditions for American naval vessels: Personally, I think it’s a shame we don’t follow the British tradition of naming ships after aspirational traits or traits of martial valor. You know, _scary_ names. _Dreadnought_, _Warrior_, _Warspite_, _Dauntless_ - I could go on. > > The Brits have often been very, very good at giving their ships scary names. Names that say, “You don’t want to be on the wrong end of this thing. You really don’t. We promise.” _John C. Stennis_ doesn’t really inspire that same level of fear. Of course, I’m not sure it matters all that much once warplanes launched from the _Stennis_ have finished pounding your military into rubble. But still. It is a good tradition, but we have traditionally used it for types of aircraft, though not strictly. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/9 "2011-07-15T14:28:19Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Well, how many carriers are named for battles in other wars? There were a couple of late WWII carriers named after earlier WWII battles, like _Coral Sea_ and _Midway_. But generally there were more Civil War battles and WWII battles than Revolutionary battles, and they don’t seem as well represented by carrier names…not sure I can even think of a carrier named after a Civil War battle. Antietam ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/10 "2011-07-15T14:28:42Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Well, how many carriers are named for battles in other wars? There were a couple of late WWII carriers named after earlier WWII battles, like _Coral Sea_ and _Midway_. But generally there were more Civil War battles and WWII battles than Revolutionary battles, and they don’t seem as well represented by carrier names…not sure I can even think of a carrier named after a Civil War battle. According to NAVsource Online, no-one is sure what CV-13, the U.S.S. Franklin, was named for. Most assume Ben Franklin, but some speculate the battle of Franklin Tn. During the civil war. The Battle of Franklin seems unlikely since it is not well known, and other battles like Gettysburg go unrepresented, so I doubt it was the battle. [http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/13.htm](http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/13.htm) ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/11 "2011-07-15T15:04:05Z")
The Secretary of the Navy gets to pick the names of the ships since 1819. The name _Trenton_ had been assigned to an Omaha-class cruiser in 1920. The various Naval Armaments treaties fell apart in the late 30’s, and Congress passed the Vinson-Walsh Act in July 1940 to prepare for war. The first eight Essex-class carriers were ordered in 1940, two were ordered a little after Pearl Harbor (paid for by the Vinson-Walsh act). An additional 19 ( :eek: ) were ordered from various east coast yards in '42, with only two of this batch being completed to see service in WW2. I am not sure at what stage of order/design/construction a warship is named, I imagine it is solely up to the discretion of the SecNav. Apparently, the then SecNav (William F. Knox) did not feel like stripping the name off of an active service ship to use on a carrier. Smaller battles (in terms of men) had their names attached to an Essex-class CV (_Bennington_), so I don’t know if “size” of the battle was a hard and fast measuring stick here. Also, _Langley_ (CV-1 and CVL-27), _Randolph_, _Hancock_, _Franklin_, and _Bonne Homme Richard_ were all named after historical personages, so not all early CV’s were named after battles. (The Battle of Franklin TN is not listed as the source of the _Franklin_ in wiki, but in any case, the town Franklin was named after the Ben Franklin, too. 😃 ) Short answer: 'Cause Knox said so. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/12 "2011-07-15T16:09:39Z")
FDR, a former Asst. SecNav, was long interested in Navy matters and also stuck in his oar now and then. I remember reading awhile back that the USS _Randolph_ was thus named at his direct request. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/13 "2011-07-15T16:22:16Z")
I would not be surprised, as the SecNav serves at the convenience of the President. Link to long explaination and history of US Navy ship naming: [http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq63-1.htm](http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq63-1.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmer_j.fudd/32/1211_2.png) [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/14 "2011-07-15T16:36:52Z")
The naming convention under which _Saratoga_, _Lexington_, and _Yorktown_ were named was NOT “famous battles” but rather “the American Revolution” (along with _Ranger, Enterprise, Wasp_, and \*Hornet \* which were named after Revolution era warships). The seven names were originally intended for a class of battle cruisers. Only two of these battle cruiser hulls were built and they were used for the carriers _Lexington_ and _Saratoga_ which kept the names already chosen for the cruisers that the hulls were intended for. Carriers in WWII did not follow a naming convention like cruisers (cities), battleships (states) and subs (fish). Carriers would be named after famous Americans and previous ships as oftenas they were named after battles. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/15 "2011-07-15T16:43:08Z")
> [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](#): > > The naming convention under which _Saratoga_, _Lexington_, and _Yorktown_ were named was NOT “famous battles” but rather “the American Revolution” (along with _Ranger, Enterprise, Wasp_, and \*Hornet \* which were named after Revolution era warships). > > The seven names were originally intended for a class of battle cruisers. Only two of these battle cruiser hulls were built and they were used for the carriers _Lexington_ and _Saratoga_ which kept the names already chosen for the cruisers that the hulls were intended for. > > Carriers in WWII did not follow a naming convention like cruisers (cities), battleships (states) and subs (fish). Carriers would be named after famous Americans and previous ships as oftenas they were named after battles. Yet Famous Battles IS (or was) a naming convention–to Wit: Antietam, which is not famous from the revolutionary war. I think the WWII traditions for naming carriers were 1) famous battles 2) famous ships and 3) famous persons. While some of these have to do with the rev war, antietam does not fit that categorization and so it must be famous battles instead. The fact that some of that was a cross-convention for battle cruisers does not change that. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/16 "2011-07-15T16:53:15Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Also, _Langley_ (CV-1 and CVL-27), _Randolph_, _Hancock_, _Franklin_, and _Bonne Homme Richard_ were all named after historical personages, so not all early CV’s were named after battles. (The Battle of Franklin TN is not listed as the source of the _Franklin_ in wiki, but in any case, the town Franklin was named after the Ben Franklin, too. 😃 ) Which makes ole Ben Franklin a double dipper in aircraft carrier names, _Bonne Homme Richard_ meaning “Poor Richard,” Franklin’s name de plume for his almanac. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/17 "2011-07-15T16:58:25Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Which makes ole Ben Franklin a double dipper in aircraft carrier names, _Bonne Homme Richard_ meaning “Poor Richard,” Franklin’s name de plume for his almanac. I think it was after the warship and not the almanac. ---
**Author:** ![Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmer_j.fudd/32/1211_2.png) [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/18 "2011-07-15T17:01:23Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Yet Famous Battles IS (or was) a naming convention–to Wit: Antietam, which is not famous from the revolutionary war. I think the WWII traditions for naming carriers were 1) famous battles 2) famous ships and 3) famous persons. While some of these have to do with the rev war, antietam does not fit that categorization and so it must be famous battles instead. The fact that some of that was a cross-convention for battle cruisers does not change that. The American Revolution theme was intended for the aborted class of battle cruisers not the carriers that borrowed their hulls and names. Before WWII, Aircraft carriers were considered freakish and ugly by most navy men and it’s surprising the powers that be even thought they warranted specific names let alone a particular naming convention. In WWII and the years that followed, aircraft carriers could be named ANYTHING. It just so happens that several were named after battles. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/19 "2011-07-15T17:24:35Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Which makes ole Ben Franklin a double dipper in aircraft carrier names, _Bonne Homme Richard_ meaning “Poor Richard,” Franklin’s name de plume for his almanac. Huh. I always thought that meant “Good Man Richard”, or… maybe “Happy Dick”. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/20 "2011-07-15T22:43:24Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > not sure I can even think of a carrier named after a Civil War battle. Maybe because every American victory in the Civil War was also an American _loss_. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097.md?page=2)