# 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:** 2
**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, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/21 "2011-07-15T23:49:57Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I think it was after the warship and not the almanac. The origional warship \*Bonne Homme Richard \*was named after Franklin’s name de plume by John Paul Jones. ---
**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, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/22 "2011-07-15T23:53:33Z")
> [@mlees](#): > > Huh. I always thought that meant “Good Man Richard”, or… maybe “Happy Dick”. 😃 The literal translation of “Bonhomme Richard” is Good Man Richard, [however](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonhomme_Richard) > [@](#): > > Bonhomme Richard or Bon Homme Richard, meaning good man Richard in French, may refer to: > [ol] > [li]USS Bonhomme Richard, several ships of the United States.[/li][li] Les Maximes du Bonhomme Richard, the French title of Poor Richard’s Almanack, for which the ships were named.[/li][li] A pseudonym of Benjamin Franklin[/li][/ol] ---
**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, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/23 "2011-07-15T23:57:06Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > The origional warship \*Bonne Homme Richard \*was named after Franklin’s name de plume by John Paul Jones. Ah, the tidbit I was missing. In World War II they’d have looked at the ship though, for the name. I know of no tradition of naming ships after books, other than the Jones example. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/24 "2011-07-16T00:04:41Z")
> [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](#): > > 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. Wrong. > **[United States ship naming conventions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ship_naming_conventions)** > > United States ship naming conventions for the U.S. Navy were established by congressional action at least as early as 1862. Title 13, section 1531, of the U.S. Code, enacted in that year, reads, in part, > The vessels of the Navy shall be named by the Secretary of the Navy under direction of the President according to the following rule: > Sailing-vessels of the first class shall be named after the States of the Union, those of the second class after the rivers, those of the third class after the p... There was never a revolution theme. As I pointed out, Antietam does not fit. Battlecruisers were named for battles or famous ships, and this convention was adopted for carriers in WW II with a few exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/25 "2011-07-16T01:40:14Z")
> [@David42](#): > > 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. Isn’t there a tradition that it’s bad luck to rename a ship? A superstition but not something you’d want to do unnecessarily to a naval crew during a war. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/26 "2011-07-16T02:24:12Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Isn’t there a tradition that it’s bad luck to rename a ship? A superstition but not something you’d want to do unnecessarily to a naval crew during a war. Yes, that superstition is known to exist amongst sailors. Whatever the case, the Navy still did it. But perhaps they didn’t in some case from objection by a crew for that reason, I don’t know. ---
**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 16, 2011, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/27 "2011-07-16T02:34:02Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Wrong. > > [United States ship naming conventions - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ship_naming_conventions) > > There was never a revolution theme. As I pointed out, Antietam does not fit. > > Battlecruisers were named for battles or famous ships, and this convention was adopted for carriers in WW II with a few exceptions. There isn’t anything in that wiki article that disputes what I wrote. The first 7 carriers took there names from the canceled cruisers (which had a Revolution theme). Carriers built after that (like Antietam) took their names from…ANYTHING the Navy felt like naming them. Take away the names of cities (used for cruisers) and states (for battleships) you’re pretty much left with battles, famous ships, and people. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/28 "2011-07-16T02:53:39Z")
> [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](#): > > There isn’t anything in that wiki article that disputes what I wrote. The first 7 carriers took there names from the canceled cruisers (which had a Revolution theme). Carriers built after that (like Antietam) took their names from…ANYTHING the Navy felt like naming them. Take away the names of cities (used for cruisers) and states (for battleships) you’re pretty much left with battles, famous ships, and people. The ARTICLE says that Battlecruisers had a naming convention of Battles and Famous Ships. You say it was revolutionary war. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/29 "2011-07-16T03:16:14Z")
Despite the minor conflicts regarding facts in this thread, it really is more of a General Question than a Great Debate. Off to GQ. ---
**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 16, 2011, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/30 "2011-07-16T03:26:00Z")
> [@David42](#): > > The ARTICLE says that Battlecruisers had a naming convention of Battles and Famous Ships. You say it was revolutionary war. Despite being in an article called “Ship Naming Conventions” it isn’t stated that it was the _convention_ to name them after battles and ships. It’s hardly conventional to choose two distinct themes for naming things within a class. Regardless, whether the convention was the Revolution or battles _and_ ships, the convention was not consistently applied to aircraft carriers in WWIi. After the initial seven which took their names from the proposed battlecruisers, new carriers were mostly named for carriers that had been sunk in 1942. After that, it’s a crapshoot of battles, old ship names, and famous Americans. ---
**Author:** ![audit1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed8c4c/32.png) [@audit1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/audit1)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/31 "2011-07-16T06:36:35Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Ah, the tidbit I was missing. > > In World War II they’d have looked at the ship though, for the name. I know of no tradition of naming ships after books, other than the Jones example. There is the USS SHANGRI-LA (CV-38) which is a place in the book Lost Horizon. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/32 "2011-07-16T12:17:38Z")
> [@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. Heh—I once wrote a short story/fictional class history of a (never built in real life) class of light carriers, and I ended up naming the class after minor, semi-forgotten battles. (it seemed appropriate 😃 ). So it ended up the _Toulgas_ class of Sea Control Ships, with other members of the class including the _Battery Wagner; Cape Gata; Vera Cruz_, etc. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/33 "2011-07-16T14:27:58Z")
> [@Ranchoth](#): > > Heh—I once wrote a short story/fictional class history of a (never built in real life) class of light carriers, and I ended up naming the class after minor, semi-forgotten battles. (it seemed appropriate 😃 ). So it ended up the _Toulgas_ class of Sea Control Ships, with other members of the class including the _Battery Wagner; Cape Gata; Vera Cruz_, etc. Now if you overlooked Trenton in your story, we’re gonna have to hang you out to dry. 🙂 JK ---
**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 16, 2011, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/34 "2011-07-16T14:42:09Z")
Darn tootin’! ---
**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 16, 2011, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/35 "2011-07-16T15:16:46Z")
Back to the OP, I don’t I think any ship would likely be specifically named after the Battle of Trenton because it shares it’s name with a modern state capital worthy of a ship’s name whether it was the site of a battle or not. The Battle of Brooklyn was probably the largest battle of the Revolution, yet none of the USN ships named USS Brooklyn were named after the battle. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/36 "2011-07-16T18:33:41Z")
> [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](#): > > Back to the OP, I don’t I think any ship would likely be specifically named after the Battle of Trenton because it shares it’s name with a modern state capital worthy of a ship’s name whether it was the site of a battle or not. The Battle of Brooklyn was probably the largest battle of the Revolution, yet none of the USN ships named USS Brooklyn were named after the battle. It’s entirely possible the residents of Trenton may have objected to losing their city’s cruiser. (I don’t mean ownership, I mean representation of cities) ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/37 "2011-07-16T18:45:42Z")
> [@audit1](#): > > There is the USS SHANGRI-LA (CV-38) which is a place in the book Lost Horizon. While your point about the name is true, the [Shangri-La](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Shangri-La_(CV-38)) is really a reference to the [Doolittle Raid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doolittle_Raid), and so follows the “name them after battles” criteria. As the wiki points out: > [@](#): > > After the Doolittle Raid, launched from the Hornet, President Roosevelt answered a reporter’s question by saying that the raid had been launched from “Shangri-La”, the fictional faraway land of the James Hilton novel Lost Horizon. I had thought Roosevelt’s quip was in response to Japanese sputtering in the world press about where this mystical raid had come from, as Japan had every rock within land based bomber range well under its control at that time. [Lost Horizon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Horizon_(1937_film)) was well-known at the time, due to the popular book in 1933, and technically ambitious movie made four years later. ---
**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 16, 2011, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/38 "2011-07-16T23:10:44Z")
> [@David42](#): > > It’s entirely possible the residents of Trenton may have objected to losing their city’s cruiser. (I don’t mean ownership, I mean representation of cities) And turn down an upgrade to an aircraft carrier? The fools! ---
**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 17, 2011, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/39 "2011-07-17T05:16:12Z")
Well, it _is_ Jersey. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2011, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097/40 "2011-07-17T05:25:27Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > And turn down an upgrade to an aircraft carrier? The fools! The carrier would be named after the battle, of course, and DISTINCTLY not their town, as this thread aptly demonstrates. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-wwii-carrier-uss-trenton/589097.md?page=3)